Advertise here

Why the 1979 Revolution failed?

Balatarin

The 1979 revolution was neither caused by foreign conspiracies, nor by an alleged “red-black-collaboration” (it refers to an alleged collaboration between the left and clergy), but mainly by the utopia of Islam.  The Islamic Shiite clergy, or Mullahs, fooled a great majority of Iranians to the today’s fiasco. The failed revolution is the result of the lack of a democratic opposition because under the Shah’s despotism such an opposition could not survive. The void thus created left the arena to the Mullahs as the only organized opposition in 1979.

 

The Iranian intelligentsia was present in the popular protests and naively accepted the supremacy of Mullahs. In return, Mullahs did not accept them, but used them as a useful tool. Once an Islamic regime was established, members of the Front National (FN) were ousted from the Islamic government. As Mullahs monopolized all powers, the leftists and then the People's Mojahedin of Iran (MKO or MKE) were subject to a rapid fatal fate. The revolutionary prosecutor banned the leading left-wing newspapers, activities and rallies. The authorities looked for excuses to persecute them. The regime’s jurisprudence issued arrest warrants of their leaders and soon started executing them. The 1988 notorious mass executions were the apogee of crimes against the MKO and leftists. Even many members of Toudeh Party / Aksariat (Aksariat refers to a “majority” faction of Marxist People's Fedai Guerrillas that collaborated with the regime), became victimes of the regime's atrocities too.

 

One must never overlook the fact that the cult of Islam is at the root of Iran’s current societal and political problems. Contrary to today’s increasing awareness about the nature of the regime, at that time the political Islam and its disastrous consequences were not exposed by the intelligentsia. I emphasize on this factor of appeasement as a failure of intelligentsia; a factor of self-alienation among our intelligentsia that not only denied the spirit of secularism and democracy, but also very essence of Marxism.

 

Let me add that this factor was an international paradigm, developed by capitalist key powers for the puropose of their colonial agenda in the 20th century.  The irony was that the two main camps of communism, Russia and China, followed the appeasement during the Cold War. The appeasement needs to be recognized as a discursive stratagem that enabled these two communist poles in their both political and economic relations with the Islamic world and “anti-imperialist” Islamic movements. This appeasement stood for the communist poles above the “atheist” ideological values of the communism and for the West above the human rights violations. 

 

For many hundreds of years Islam has imposed its totalitarian ideology and accompanying religion through its sword on many peoples, including Iranians. Our intelligentsia only saw the problems largely in the U.S.A. and U.K. … as the source of imperialistic or colonial ills, not in the coercive nature of Islam as the first and worst “imperialism”. Also, this deviation served the colonial powers in order to portray Islam as a part of Iranian identity. There was not an intellectual trend in Iran denouncing the disastrous results of colonial and backward nature of political Islam. This is the fiasco our intellectual pioneers failed to realize in the 1979 revolution itself with its initial impetus of anti-despotism.

 

Not only the Iranian left, but also the non-Marxists, nationalists, patriots, democrats… were influenced by Khomeini and his Islamic movement and mistakenly saw in Islam a progressive source of independence and anti colonialism. This criterion dominated the balance of power during the 1979 revolution. Apart from the Iranian protégés and followers of these two communist camps of the East, many western sympathizers followed this bottom line of appeasement with Islam, and only after the 1979 revolution they realized their miscalculation.

 

It is extremely short-sighted and intellectually dishonest to label the 1979 revolution either as a mistake of our “ungrateful people toward the Shah” or a product of a conspiracy theory tramped by a “red-black” with active collaboration or the foreign plans -- even if the key powers had realized that the Shah’s days were numbered.

 

Only Iranian people with self-determination toppled the Shah’s despotism and the fiasco happened after the fait accompli, quite independently from the fairness of the anti-Shah revolution. The fact is that the left and secular spectrum of Iranian intelligentsia were not as present and organized as Mullahs were during the revolution. The 1979 revolution ended up to become a “fiasco” because Shiite Islam was strenghtened by the Shah and thus the Shiite Mullahs were the only intact opposition under the megalomaniac Shah and, what is even worse, these Mullahs were blindly followed by a great majority of Iranians including the intelligentsia.

 

Balatarin

Comments 105 Pending 0

Sort comments:
schamsi1

Schamsi1

Of course...there was absolute no conspiracy....Oil..totally unimportant...the world was totally surprised...everything happened magically somehow....Please Mr. Rashidian..I am sure you can write nice poems...science fiction maybe..but I do hope, that REALISTS one Day will rule our country, and not dreamer. it was the dreamers faction, who sold the country to Khomeini.
By the way: I do not support any person or party or ideology. But I support Realism, Ratio. Reading the details, i conclude something nearly completely different.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Mr. Schamsi, as I replied on my facebook to such comments, I do not believe in an evil impostor as Messianic secret power or a Judaist-Illumiati secret entity behind any event including the 1979 revolution. The revolution was the job of over the 90% of Iranian people against the unchained despotism and corruption of the Shah’s regime, but the impetus for which it went in flame was a dream of utopia on Islam.
No foreign hand elaborated scheme to demise the Shah, whom the US /UK brought in power through the well-documented 1953 coup.

schamsi1

Schamsi1

In this Interview with "Der Spiegel" from June 4, 1984, Ajatollah Tehrani says: "The US and Khomeini held contact before the Revolution. They said: we will make the Shah leave the country, if you are willing to serve our interests. (...) "

So either Ajatollah Tehrani was a lyer or....

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13507887.html

schamsi1

Schamsi1

Dear Mr. Rashidian, I did not mention these societies. You mentioned them. I am just talking about FACTS. It is a FACT that such groups do exist, but I personally would never go so far to say: "its the illuminati or this or that secret society, who initiated the Revolution. In Fact, what these groups are doing is totally uninteresting for me.

Back to the facts:
By mentioning Ramsey Clark, William Sullivan, Carter, BBC and so on, I do not want to blame the FOREIGNERS ALONE! In FACT, Iranians themselves made a lot of mistakes. But this can be just part of a discussion, of a big picture. You are right in many points, but you draw the WRONG conclusions.

You say Islam is the Core Problem of Iran. If Islam is abolished in one day, will the problems of Iran be solved? Clearly NO. So Islam is not the CORE Problem, but PART of the problem.

The Core Problem is the ideology, and people as you (and me before...) thought: We have no ideology, because we are seeking for democracy. But that´s not true, but another dicussion.

So again and this convinces me again in my views: We have FACTS: RAmsye Clark, Jimmy Carter, BBC, General Huyzer and so on.....
You did not answer to my hints: DID they have an influence on the Revolution?? Who helped Khomeini to run a country?? Did he learn this in Ghom??? Is that so easy? Why did the US sent weapons to Iran in 1979, WHILE during the SAME TIME the US embassy was seized by ISLAMISTS? Mr. Yazdi was a Spy of the US, Working for the US during 1979. How do I Know?
Because its written in the papers of the embassy itself, have a look at it (Search for REFTEL).

MY MAIN Problem with Intellectuals with good intentions is, that you always are talking the same perspective and view and you always ignore the FACTS; you even do not answer directley my questions.

Again, i am not an islamist, monarchist, communist, typical conspiracy theorist. I am searching for the truth, and then everybody can make his own mind.

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

Why don't you get your facts straight! You are NOT making any sense, with all due respect! Not the whole world operates on conspiracy!

schamsi1

Schamsi1

1. Sorry for the language mistakes, i was in a hurry.
2. The Shah got power back in 1953 with the help of US, OK. So this would be a Conspriacy. Right? I think we all agree. If good or bad, right or not, that´s another discussion.
3. The war of the West against Iraq, was a conspiracy. Right? A lot of wars around of our country were Conspiracies, I think we can agree all.

But the Revolution in a counbtry full of oil, border with the soviet union, 1979 was not a conspracy? It was a spontaniuos popular uprising? What is the basis your view?

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

Iranian revolution was real and genuine! It was changed, and emasculated!

schamsi1

Schamsi1

Sorry to destroy your Disney World view.

So, let us go back to the facts. It was said during the Revolution, that there were 100.000 political presonners in Iran until 1979.

Source for this number?
Any Proof?

schamsi1

Schamsi1

I do not want to insult you, so to be precise and not to be missunderstood: I am sure, your Intentions are good for Iran. But I see something interesting concerning iranian "intellectualls": They ignore the FACTS. The grasp some details, some facts and put them together to create a new Reality, which is more chracterized by ROMANCE. So, you ignore the big picture, and you are describing what has happened there at the basis (peopels level). Then you say: It was like that. Basta. FINIS. No conspiracy, no foreign intervention. Aha. Anything else will be flase. Pretty Fanatic, or???
By ignoring FACTS (Oil, BBC, General Huyzer, Sullivan, Ramsey Clark, and so on, you know all about), you create a totaly incomplet picture. Based on that "only possible" view, which in reality is false, you consequently and neccessarily draw the only logical (and of yourse also false) conclusions. You are entering a highway, chossen by yourself, ignoring other peoples Hints ("Hey, ther are also other highways!") and there is no return and even no exit. So for you Revolutions happen somehow like this. We can proove nowadays the opposite. But back to Romance: I do not see any difference between people like you (I am sure: DRIVEN by good Intentions!!), who want Democracy, and the Isalmists, the Communists and Monarchists. Any of them may have good intentions. But your main Problem is, that you are sleeping. You are fixed in your ideology, all of you. Wake up and accept: It starts all with MONEY, ECONOMY. Then comes Money..and then POWER and MOney again. All these stories and myths, told by european historians, that people stand up against tyranny and it happens SUDDENLY by It Self...Sorry to wake you up, IN ha DASATN hastand, Ke mara Khar Konand. And it seems, that Iranians became well...somehow...I MYself made this mistake for years. By the way, why none of the intellectuals stands up and says: WE MADE A MISTAKE! They are pointing to Khomeini and say: they Highjacked the Revolution.
Hey Guys: You say self determinated people started a Revolution without US Support. OK. Fine. People until toppeling the Shah were great. Intelligant. So why they did not bring it to a brilliant end for all of us??? Aha, it was the others...then suddenly it´s the great powers fault, entering the game. A minute People were the great intellecutals. Alone. No BBC, General Huyser, no sullivan talking to Khomeini. No Ramsey Clark in Paris. Congratulations you Heros!!!
And suddenly, when it comes to the Core Analysis ("What went wrong"), when suddenly the shiney ROMANTIC Mask could fall...then suddenly it was the US, it was a brilliant Khomeiny, it was the communists....all of them, including Modjahed, Tudeh, Democrats what ever->suddenly it was the others, the great powers.
So, Until the toppeling all the great powers were impressed and speechless by this self determinated Iranians. WOW!!!! Carter Must have been very impressed!!! And the English also!! Brilliant Iranians talking to the streets, the West totaly surprised...Of course, the West had no interest in iRan, until suddenly the Shah was toppeled.. the woke up... Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud, ....
Please, be honest. If the LAST part was right, then explain the first part again...as it was, and this time with all the truth....Iranian Intellectuals are narcists, maybe with good intentions, but narcists. And IDEOLOGISTS (even Democrats!!) And the are "ROMANTIKER" (German). This is a very dangerous mix. What we do need in Iran are Realists, who understand to understand economy and REAL Politics. And who can read the FACTS. We so don need the French or German Version of World history, which in fact always is written by the WINNERS. And the Winner for 35 years are the Foreigners. Europe including Russia, China, The US. And the Islamic Conquerors, born maybe in Iran, but with the mind of invaders from the Levante (todays Libanon and part of Syria) from where the were imported 400 years ago by the british and some Persian (Ex-Turkish) emperors to build a block against the ottoman empire.

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

Why don't you remove yourself from the fantasy world, paranoia and conspiracy theories and pay more attention to the facts on the ground! Rrather than what ifs and should have, and could haves!

schamsi1

Schamsi1

Well, maybe because I know a lot more about these things then you.

Tell me the facts, but dont shout around. Fantasy is to say a revolution happens because of the free will of the people. Wake up.

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

I sincerely doubt, reading your conspiratorial writing coupled with wrong assumptions! It tells me that you don't EVEN know what the HELL you are talking about. I am completely awaken, but NOT quite sure that you are or still fantasizing!

One important accomplishment of revolution was getting rid of the despotic, corrupt, and betraying traitor, the king and his family of embezzlers!

The reason behind the failure of revolution was that the traitor king had murdered an overwhelming number of active and able opposition leaders and what was left was a group of ineffective elderly men against the onslaught of a well organized Akhoonds, pampered by the traitor Shah. He thought they would be his last hope and bastion of security and his last chance! He failed!

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

And talking and fantasizing and then more speculation and more conspiracy theories, and non and on and on....

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Mr. Schamsi, I can follow your points very well. As you mentioned some, there were many factors embroiled in the 1979 failed revolution, but let’s analyse the curtail ones which has a range of 1400 years in our history. Let’s be n history enough to shed light on it with honesty to confess that Islam is not yet beaten up...! Its dark clutches continue threatening our people through Eslahtalab, Sabz, Banafsh…
Let’s be honest to admit the truth that people since 1340 years are embroiled in the utopia of Islam. And the tempted people were ready to fall into its traps. It was the case in of the 1979 revolution, so Islam was the only reaming ideology behind the 1979 revolution.
Reflect of Islam on our life is still there and this is one reason the plague of the Islamic regime exists. We must recognise the black beast in order to kill it, as saying in a French expression: (Il faut connaitre la bête noire pour la tuer)! This is the whole reason I put an accent on this beast.

Raoul1955

Raoul1955

Jahanshah:
My first thought after reading "The failed revolution is the result of the lack of a democratic opposition because under the Shah’s despotism such an opposition could not survive..." was to inquire if this was based on empirical data analyzed by a group of social scientists or one’s fantasy, but ...
Perhaps what happened to Iranians was a direct result of their own cultural norms, customs, and social constructs. In short, the British and later the US with the help of the Pahlavi dynasty provided a very progressive and nurturing society, BUT it was [and is] the Iranians collective belief system, customs, and social norms that gave the entire society what they in fact needed, i.e., the islamic regime.
I recognize that many current and former ‘Iranians’ who have embraced Western values continue to project their own Westernized values on the Iranian society and criticize the British, the US and the Pahlavi dynasty, thinking that had it not been for those evil 'entities' that the Iranian society will be a secular democratic one… In short they think that without those three evil entities Iran could have been another America, Sweden, Canada, etc.
I have been interacting with REAL Iranians [citizens of Iran who live and function in the Iranian society] who are fluent in English and to some degree Westernized, BUT in every single case they turned out to subscribe to a very different cultural value system than a regular person, in short it is easier for me to interact with folks whose value systems are based on the English, Danish, Finnish cultures [or any Western European culture] than with any of those people from the islamic regions!

Finally, had it not been for the United States of America and their late King, the Iranian society would be worse off today as many of the so-called 'Iranians' would still be in Iran herding their livestock and tending their farms instead of being prominent members of our society!

DoostIran

DoostIran

Khomeini is the direct result of the infamous battle of Al Qadesieh in which a marauding tribe of Arabs overthrew the Sassanids and forced their regressive, misogynistic and cruel "religion" down our throats. Until such time that there is a religious hold on the population of Iran any hope of reform is wishful thinking. Islam and any form of progressiveness, which includes democracy, are mutually exclusive.

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

Had it NOT been for the traitor king, we would NOT have Khomeini and his gang of fanatical murderers to deal with!

Raoul1955

Raoul1955

I was expressing [historical] facts and not conjecture. However, making the hypothetical statement 'Had it NOT been ...NOT have Khomeini...' is based on pure speculation while disregarding the islamic culture of the Iranian society.

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

Wrong! May be speculation to the Shahollahi/Hezbollah, but fact to political observers!

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

There's a great amount of historical facts missing from your "narrative," amongst them but not limited to:
- Iran had the most extended, advanced civil society; both during the Constitutional Revolution & early 50's.
- Both so called Pahlavi "kings" were instrumental in total destruction of these civil societies of their periods.
[and at this juncture I must move the car, so I stop here for now!]

Shirzadegan

Siavash

Thanks for the literature, but there are some points which seems to have been written with some degree of prejudice and pre -conceived opinion.

The influence of religious figures in Iran's politic has a long history. It has nothing to do with Pahlavi or "the lack of a democratic opposition because under the Shah’s despotism such an opposition could not survive." as you stated in the blog.

In ancient Persia, Zorasterian priest called "Mogh"
"Moghan" is a popular form of Mogh. Moghan were very powerful in ancient Persia. They could appoint someone as a king of Iran. They were also able to impeach the king. They were the ones who decided who is suitable to be a king and who is not good for the country to maintain to be king.
After Arab invasion the Zorasterian priest changed to the Shia clergies, but their function remained the same as Zorasterian priest. They have always been powerful.

During Qajar dynasty, when Ayatollahs Shirazi banned Tobacco in Iran, the women in Nasser e din shah haram refused to serve the king with Hookah. People avoid to smoke Tobacco in order of Shia clergy. You may read the full story here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Protest

As you read in the above link, you will know the influence of religious figures in Iran's politics has nothing to do with Pahlavi. The intervention of religion figures into the politic has been part of Iranian psychic and part of our "Collective Unconscious" as Karl Jung conceptualized. Historical impulses has been passed through generations in a form of "Archetype". It was transited from one generation to the next one.
Similarly, Padeshahi is part of Persian's Archetype. it is rooted in "Collective Unconscious" of Iranians. It has been transferred from one generation to the next. It is part of dynamic of Iranian psychic. Multi transitional generations. (M.T.G).
The vivid example is the "Darya Kenar" or going to Caspian sea in summer for fun. The trip was full of energy, and happiness for Iranians when our Padeshah was on power, but it turned to ghost town after shah left the country. Deep depression came to the hearts of each Iranian. "Masses" are still suffering from that "Collective Depression". The voice of Azan from Minars in every mosques makes our people more and more depressed on daily basis. I believe "Mass depression" continues till the remains of our shahanshah returns to Iran from Cairo with high degree of dignity and respect. That will the only time our nation will be able to experience happiness and joy once again.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Thank you dear Siavash for developing interesting points! Apart from pre-Islamic religions in Iran, Islam has been a symbiosis with despotism under various forms of hand-picked caliphs, Amirs, and Kings under Shiite cult since Safavid Dynasty.
Since the Safavids, monarchy and the imposed sect of shiism have formed a symbiosis and only could exist as such. All kings of Safavid, Ghajar and the Shah had the self-appointed titles like “shadow of God on Earth, deputy of Mahdi” …and a number of pompous adjective added to their names to be idolised.
Of course such figures belong to human collective unconsciousness, but let me tell you Carl Gustav Jung has never said these collective unconscious archetypes are good for human conscious behaviour. Freud called them archaic remnants, so their present has nothing to do with our today’s set of morality.
Monarchy for me is an archaic form of state in an egalitarian and dominated society; it carries germs of corruption and despotism, especially in a society in which the king is bestowed a holy figure by the brutal Shiite sect.

Shirzadegan

Siavash

Dear Jahanshah,
Through analysis of our "Collective Unconscious" one can predicts what direction Iran is heading. It appears to me it will be monarchy. What you said : "Monarchy for me is an archaic form of state in an egalitarian and dominated society; it carries germs of corruption and despotism" is mostly rooted in "conditioning learning". You may heard the word "monarchy" and immediately it was associated with the concept of "despotism". In other word, Monarchy is one man speak and the rest of society must obey. Such an interpretation is NOT accurate. We see very progressive countries such as Netherlands, Sweden, or U.K is running by Monarchy. They are NOT despotism. So where did the concept of "despotism" come from. ?
It is conditioning. It has been propagated mostly by Mullahs, especially back in 70's. They conditioned people as Ivan Pavlov conditioned his pet in his lab. Once something say Monarchy, automatically it comes to mind dictatorship.
Do you see how mullahs brainwashed and manipulated our people. ?
Like I said before, religion has been intimated with politic from ancient time in Iran. Has it been in symbiosis relationship with king, Amirs and Caliphs.? Yes, of course. Why not. ?
Similarly, RACE had been used by Hitler in a form of "Mass manipulation".
Similarly, EQUALITY has been used by Stalin in a form of "Mass manipulation".
Similarly, Shia clergies speak of "Islamic revolutionary" for the manipulation of the mass.
During Pahlavis, revolutionary movements and Islamic political fugures aimed to establish Islamic state by manipulating Masses.
It started during constitutional revolution when group of people gathered in the front of Parliament (Majlis) chanting " Moshroteh nemekhaheem, din mobeen khaheem", Means " we don't want constitution monarchy we want Islamic government".
Then it came to an ayatollah by the name of Hadi Modaress who challenged Reza Khan. He wanted to end Reza Khan rule and establish Islamic government. His confrontation with Reza Khan has been well established and discussed thousand times in Iran' state control T.V and radio.
Then it came to Mirza Kochak Khan Jingali who wanted law of Koran governs over Iran. He was a religion revolutionary man from providence of Gilan. He challenged Reza Khan till his demise.
Then it came to Sheikh Mohamad Kheyabani in Tabriz. He was a mullah with turban on his head who wanted to establish Islamic government.
All these "Islamic revolutionary" have been suppressed by Reza Khan. Later on, it came the riot of Khomaini in 2 cities of Tehran and Qom in 1963. Needless to say about Navab Safavi, Mohamad Bokharaie, and finally MEK. These are all Islamic movements aimed to establish Islamic state and end monarchy in Iran. They used koran and Islam as a way to challenge Monarchy and Padeshah. Unfortunately, They were finally succeeded in 1979 and we experienced disaster and misery afterward. The rulers always used something to justify their existence on power. Otherwise, how can they justify of massacre of million innocent people. Or how can they survive without manipulation of Masses.

cyrousmoradi

cyrous moradi I am interested in Mathematics , literature and International relations. I wish to publish my stories . No publisher dares to do so. I think they have good reasons !! No body waste time and money to buy and read my books !!!!

Do you know the Babel Tower story ? Guys couldn't speak and communicate with each other, Al construction attempts failed.There was no common language.
We as Iranian can not speak with each others. Almost it is 2500 years we can not communicate with our country fellowmen. Just now we can not do this.
It is very interesting there are nearly 5 million Iranian out of country worldwide. There are no common communication tool like E- newspaper or something else among them.
Now you know why 1979 or even 2079 , 3079 or even 4079 revolution will fail!!!

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Dear Mr.M it's not that we lack a common language, rather we have a multiplicity of various sub-cultures (Mr. Mohammad Ghead has an entire theory of Iranian politics & history based on this notion of competing sub-cultures in Iranian society).
These various KHORDEH FARHANG in our history have always been fighting & competing amongst each other, and in retrospect it seems that the conservative, traditional sub-cultures have often played a dominant role.
Thus we have some Iranians living with ethics, morality & values of 1400 years ago of Arabia (which they think is the height of human civilization) while we have some others pushing for the international norms of 21st century, with the majority of our population between these two poles, not giving a hoot about ethics, morality, values and norms of either 1400 years ago or 21st century, just busy keeping their head above the water, making a living & maintaining their families.
Hence our national collective "stuckness" after 35 years of the not so glorious revolution!
- Your permanent Indolandian fan.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Capitalism consists of service and production for sale, its branches co-exist in a no-boundary-geography-profit. Therefore, in a globalised economy, success of one country does not forcibly mean the failure of others. This colonial model of unchained robbery of “colonial / imperialist powers” is void for many reasons including the new mechanisms of markets. But still an irked nationalstic or leftist feedback loop tempt our intellectuals to fall into conspiracy theory of “foreign enemy or Daee jan Napleon.” This peculiar trend, which apparently shows courage, is mettle caused in the final round by a culture of traditionalism or better said backwardness.

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Though we might slightly disagree on the core definition of Capitalism*, we probably agree that it is truly a revolutionary mode of production (compared to previous modes of production), which "Melts all that is solid into air".
In this transformative process it turns the entire world into a global village, if you will (of course the revolutionary aspect of Capitalism in age of Financialization and global environmental crisis takes on a reactionary character and destructive nature).

Your observation about Iranian intelligentsia's traditionalist, backward, ultra-nationalist reaction and avoidance of Capitalism is a substantially valid observation. Even amongst the Leftists elite of early 70's we see direct evidence of such conservative sentiments. A few years back a site published the recordings of a dialogue between two leading members of two different Leftists organizations of that time, and beneath all that vehement protests against shah's dictatorship and fascism, there was a clear and distinct opposition to introduction of large scale industry, (and Capitalism) in Iran, in favor of supporting the traditional indigenous petty bourgeoisie. And this was amongst the "Left!" One could imagine how others segments of Iranian society might have felt about introduction of capitalism into Iran.
Alas shah's gargantuan development plans, left little room for success because of his hyperbolic goals, and utterly stupid implementations.
Needless to say capitalist development under IR has been drastically worse than monarchy, leading to mass poverty, high unemployment, and creeping national environmental disasters on Biblical proportions.

*) The most dynamic aspect of Capitalism is how it transforms basic human labor into a commodity and through a capitalist organization of production; capitalist labor process, takes labor productivity to levels never seen before in human history. Of course on the negative side of this equation we have issues of exploitation, labor alienation and commodification of every day life.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Zendanian, certainly capitalism and its immoral lucrative policy is fruitless to justice, peace and prosperity of humanity. I wish with our ethical evolution, humanity will adopt an economic model that does not engender all ills capitalism inevitably inflicts.

The point is, like it or not, capitalism is today the only existing model of economy. The alternative, the centrally planned economy, would turn into a state capitalism run by a clique of party elites, even if “social ownership” is baptised for it.

The utopia was that most adepts of Iranian Marxist-Leninism promise of the immediate end of capitalism, as the end were underway! Especially "in the dependent capitalist sates like Iran."

I do not think since the end of the the second half of 20th century, countries with comprador industry or so-called dependent and peripheral capitalist regimes were so affected by this system that peoples were ready to merely revolt against it.

On the contrary, witnessing domestic dictatorial regimes, the grassroots were not fascinated by another sort of an imported idea of "proletariat" dictatorship. Furthermore, some "dependent capitalist" countries like Singapore, S. Korea, and Brazil, which were once in the category of "comprador / dependent capitalists" and finally achieved an autonomic industry with no societal trend of revolution against that.

Needless to mention that rapid growth of heavy or mother industry does not forcibly bring democracy and much social justice, otherwise under Stalinism and Nazism democracy and justice should have been flourished.

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Even within Capitalism there are different varieties that need to be recognized. The sort of Capitalism they have in Norway, Holland, Sweden, Australia,...is very high on all indices of social welfare and protection, and a bit closer to what we might consider a just social order.
In Iran we certainly have the natural and human resources to establish this type of Welfare state, the only missing element is independent organizations of the working class. As fascistic as mullahs in Iran for the past 35 years have been, even today we have active independent workers' organizations in Iran, struggling under a most bloody dictatorship. So, there's hope!

Also in early 21st century, I'm not sure how much this notion of "dependent capitalism" has any utility, many erstwhile "third world' economies like Brazil, India, China, South Korea, Taiwan,...are now very much independent global economic movers and shakers in the world market.

Per transition to a socialist state; we all saw what happened to "socialism in one country." Unless there's a worldwide movement towards socialism in major economies of the world, any move by a single country is condemned to failure. So we could keep on waiting for Godot! or plan to have a cooperative economy based on social justice. Michael Albert's notion of "Participatory Economics," is an interesting start in that direction. Cheers

Parecon: Life After Capitalism
by Michael Albert
An answer to the constant query put to economic and globalization activists: what do you want?
'What do you want?' is a constant query put to economic and globalization activists decrying current poverty, alienation and degradation. In this highly praised new work, destined to attract worldwide attention and support, Michael Albert provides an answer: Participatory Economics, 'Parecon' for short, a new economy, an alternative to capitalism, built on familiar values including solidarity, equity, diversity and people democratically controlling their own lives, but utilizing original institutions fully described and defended in the book.

http://www.versobooks.com/books/85-parecon

P.S. As exaggerated as it might sound the problem of global environmental destruction is getting to be as important (if not more important ) as issues of wealth distribution and social justice. The book below is one of the latest scientific appraisal of just how close we are to the brink of global environmental destruction. Definitely not a pretty picture!

The Sixth Extinction: Elizabeth Kolbert on How Humans Are Causing Largest Die-Off Since Dinosaur Age

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/11/the_sixth_extinction_elizabeth_kolbert_on

http://elizabethkolbert.com/excerpt.html?utm_source=googlesearch&utm_medium=onlinead&utm_term=extinction&utm_content=-na_readanexcerpt_readanexcerpt&utm_campaign=9780805092998

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

Indeed the revolution had many sobering lessons for Marxists and liberals alike. Good to see someone openly writing about the collaboration of Iranian secularists with Khomeini. It was a bad move.

However, the question arises: would the revolution have succeeded if the various factions aligned against the Shah had split? Might it have become sectarian like Syria today then?

Also, I suspect that the weight of the religious revolutionaries was far bigger than the secularist camp. I doubt the secularists had any chance whatsoever, regardless of strategy.

And how would the revolution have evolved had Saddam not attacked Iran?

In the final analysis, there was only one single nationwide institution that had the capacity to mobilise millions, and that was the mosque. And this too, as you mention, was in large part thanks to the clueless Shah who had quashed all other forms of political organization open to the people.

With the benefit of hindsight, I would suggest that the outcome might have been inevitable.

P.Galenous

P_J. An Iranian!

Absolutely RIGHT! While the traitor shah had destroyed all of the opposition... Akhoonds had been pampered and mosques untouched!

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

and their leader was driven to the centre of Shia scholarship by the Shah's demand that Turkey should expel him from the country. He made the same mistake again and forced Saddam to kick Khomeini out of Iraq, and this is how he ended up in Paris with the whole world's media at his service and free of charge.

Anglo_Phile

Anglo Phile

"It was a bad move."

I nominate you for the understatement of the year award.

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

more like serious confusion

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Populism of Iranian Left was as much a contributing factor in success of mullahs as any other internal or external reason.
That whole discourse of Occidentofication GHARB ZADEGI, effectively paralyzed Left's mode of thought.
Although the author here claims there were no Leftist critique of political Islam, we had many intellectuals such as Mostafa Rahimi, Akbar Radi, Ahmad Shamlo, Amirparviz Poyan, Enaayat,...plus a handful of groups & parties that had no illusion about mullahs since day one. But obviously all these dissenting individuals & formations were a distinct minority, in the overall scheme of things.
What was most crucial to overthrowing the monarchy in 1979, was the widespread, militant participation of Iranian working class, especially the final actions of Oil workers & shutting down of Iranian Oil industry.
Iranian working class lead the nation in action during the revolution, but it abandoned its leadership capacity due to Populism of Iranian Left.
This time around Iranian workers shall remain in their leadership position.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Zendanian, thanks for insightful discussion as usual. With all respect to Jazani, in his books: Arm Struggle / Capitalism and Revolution/ 30-years History…or in Pouyan’s Theory of Survival, there is no essential critique on Islam. Jazani even considered Khimeini "progressive petit Bourgeoisie".
As I mentioned in my piece, Islam was not the real concern of our secular / leftist intellectuals before 1979.

aaa3636

aaa3636

It failed because it was led by bunch of cruel, criminal, and evil minded. When a society does not show compassion toward his/her fellow mankind and does not care about the truth they deserve to be fooled by free loader Akhonds. Innocent people were raped, tortured, and murdered and there was no voice of caring and justice.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

No credible analyst condemns people for their clumsy doom. Class domination behind the state is generally responsible for such a doom. A big part of collective behaviour of Iranians are natural result of despotism of shahs. Without such despotic and Shiite shahs, backward attitudes could not achieve such a destructive weight in Iran.

aaa3636

aaa3636

Crime against humanity is far more despicable than clumsy. I do not care who and under what regime these crimes are committed. SAVAK, Pasdar, Hezbollahi, Basijis and Mazhabi are the same to me. You do not have to be well educated to know crime against another human being is despicable.

mehrabad

mehrabad Iran ud An-Iran

It could perhaps help us further understand the issue if we look at people's attitudes leading up to the revolution and how they changed during the last few months and immediately after khomeini's return.
- Iran's pre-revolutionary television was dominated by American produced entertainment and news sources. This was actually very expertly dubbed into farsi.Even today millions of people trust western news more than the regime's sanctioned news. So when the western media turned against the shah, largely due to his quadrupling of oil prices, most of our population and our western educated intellectuals parroted all these talking points.
- 6 months before the revolution practically nobody outside of religious circles had even heard of khomeini and nobody thought that the shah could ever be overthrown. What caused larger and larger crowds to fill the streets was the shah's unwillingness to use the necessary force to stop the protests decisively at the beginning. People then lost respect for the shahs power to rule in the face of opposition and abandoned any hope of his ability to do so. Think about it this way. Would Reza Shah have allowed people to gather in the streets and yell ''marg bar shah'' for even an hour? He would have gone to the mullahs personally and taught them a good lesson with his ''shal'lagh''. What does that say about our society that we worship power like this? Is it perhaps due to the mentality that people must be whipped into shape because supposedly,they don't know whats good for them?
- A vast number of people also thought Khomeini was some sort of Ghandi figure. That he would peacefully retire to Qom and let the secular intellectuals basically run the country while perhaps occasionally intervening to call attention to some issues of corruption. Nobody knew then that khomeini was already given the blessing of the U.S. when he assured Carter that he would ''never let Iran become a communist nation''. I remember my uncle before the revolution talking to many of his friends about what would happen if khomeini was given power. ''This akhoond will reverse the clock. He will institute sharia law. He will force your wives and daughters into hejab! ''They would laugh and say,''What do you think this is? Saudi Arabia? We would kick him out just like we will the shah if he even thinks about it!''
- Ofcourse we know the rest of the story. Khomeini went on to kill more people in three months than the Shah's entire almost four decades of rule.
- Iran went from having the world record for economic growth from 1967-1978 on the eve of the revolution at a steady 11% growth to disaster on an epic scale that only got worse as the huge westernized middle and upper-classes fled khomeini's pasdar and komiteh islamic police. Much of this pretty much amounted to 17 year-old kids with ak-47s stopping people's cars on the road to smell for alchohol and music tapes. Not that mass execution wasn't a factor in their decisions to flee from the mullahs.
- What is the result today in the collective psyche of most Iranians both inside and outside the country? A rather peculiar situation where political Islam has caused such devastation to our country that millions of people actually want the shah back! They would rather have the ''dictator's'' son return Iran to it's previous state than be proud of their ''enghelab''. This must involve some deep level of soul searching for millions of people to put aside their pride and admit they were duped by the same western powers that they supposedly were seeking independence from! Ofcourse not all Iranians are willing to even entertain this thought. The implications are too dire. It means we were never at the level of political maturity not to get duped by politicians and fear-mongering even from outside the country. If you really want to make these people angry just call out their rediculous and exaggerated talking points fed to them first by the western media and then by the Islamic Republic. Ask for any kind of proof of the 100.000 peole killed by SAVAK. Then ask how the shah stole ''billions'' when the mullahs have taken the Pahlavi family to COURT no less than twelve times and lost every single case because they realized themselves that it was just propaganda. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly conducted investigations into SAVAK's human rights abuses and have repeatedly concluded that no more than an estimated 3000 people were EVER imprisoned for political reasons and no more than 1000 people could have been executed during the shah's ENTIRE almost four decades of reign?
- Persian pride is indeed a powerful weopon in the hands of our enemies. I'm not even going to start talking about ''democratically elected Mossadegh'' who was actually chosen by the majles, which was then dissolved by him and his assuming dictatorial powers, control of the armed forces etc. Just ask them to tell you which election it was where Mossadegh was ''democratically elected'' ?

schamsi1

Schamsi1

@mehrabad
I agree in EVERY Point. (And the Point "Mossadegh" very good!!! So few people have understood the easiest but very important things...Hitler also was appointed by the Reichspräsident Hindenburg->why do western newspapers and historians never say: The Democratically elected Adolf Hitler? )
The Shah made a lot of mistakes. This is also a fact. Concerning the 3200 political pris.: I have not a problem, if people use numbers cautiously and with responsibility. But if a surgeon says: I have done this surgery 100.000 times and I find out, that he has done the operation 3200 times, then I start asking: Why is that guy lying?? Back to politics. To the dreamers I just can say: To talk about democracy is one thing, to run a country is something else. It was these Dreaming people, who gave the country to the islamists. I do not BLAME them, I do not talk about fault, but I think "people", especially dreamy intellectuals should take RESPONSIBILITY for their failure, to not let it happen again. By Advocating Democracy without understanding Democracy the same will happen again as in 1979. If you want Democracy, OK! Go for it. But first go and understand Politics. And Economy. And Reality. But do not dream.

Iranians have a Core Problem, the have "Oghdeh" and I can understand that very well. They want to say: "We also are somebody in this world!". But they ran after foreign ideologies and try to copy them, instead of inventing their own. The Iranians are searching in the whole world (Makkeh in Saudi Arabia, Moscow, Washington and Paris) to create a system in Iran? why do they copy the constitution of Belgium and are so proud of that? Why do they Advocate a western solution for Iran, which does not allows for Iran to develop the country?

What we do need is an IRANIAN System for Iran, not a copy of a foreign system.

schamsi1

Schamsi1

Martin Ennals, general secretary of Amnesty Internation Iran, 1976 report: „Iran is having the single worst human rights record on the planet“ .

So I prefer not to comment that sentence. So let us talk again about facts. in it´s Iran report 1976, there is a "Victim" of the Shah-regime, telling about his prison time, his report is about 21 lines long.

His name: Reza Baraheni.

He is the only and main witness in this report. He tells us, that he was in jail, then "they" let him alone in that room, the torturer leaves the room, so he can walk around. He sees "tools of horror", but does not describe any of them.

Interesting, this prisoneer and Amnesty Crown Witness has written a book in German"Der Clan der Kannibalen" (Clan of the Kannibals). In this book at that time he writes:" Man schätzt, (..) 19 Jahre SAVAK (...) 300 000 Menschen im Gefängnis gesessen haben“ ".

Translation: "One estimates, that in the last 19 years 300.000 people were in jail."

So my question: who is "one?". Sources??

„Jeder Schullehrer mit etwas Erfahrung wird einem bestätigen, daß in manchen Dörfern die Schulkinder mittags zum Grasen auf die Weise geführt werden.“

Transl: Every teacher with a bit experience will confirm, that in some villages school kids have to eat gras from the earth like cows.

Sources??

„Jeden Monat werden im Durchschnitt 1500 Leute verhaftet.
Zur Entführung eines Verdächtigen benötigt die SAVAK vier Agenten.“

Transl: Every month in the average 1500 people are arrested.To kidnapp one person, SAVAK needs 4 man.

Sources??

„Es ist schon geschehen, daß an einem Tag 5000 Leute verschwanden. "

Transl. It indeed happened, that 5000 people disappear in one day.
Source?

„Die Zahl der Informanten der SAVAK soll in den letzten 5 Jahren zwischen 500 000 und 1 Millionen betragen“

Number of Agents working for SAVAK ranges between 500.000-1000.000.

Sources?

„Am 5. Juni 1963 .(..) haben konterrevolutionäre Abteilungen des iranischen Heeres 6000 Menschen umgebracht“

On 5, June 1963 iranian army killed 6000 people.

Have you tried to kill 6000 people? in one day? try it. You will become desperate.

My Source by the way:
http://www.booklooker.de/B%C3%BCcher/Angebote/titel=Der+Clan+der+Kannibalen&autor=Baraheni,+Reza,&sortOrder=preis_total


So, this was the main witness of AI in 1976, the report, which ws the start gunfire for the medial revolution.

schamsi1

Schamsi1

@mehrabad:
Thanks for this very good analysis, free of ideology, narcism and just analysing facts. Most of Iranians (especially here) will prefer not to answer to any points in your text, because theire pretty romantic view of the Revolution will be destroyed. So if anybody is intersted in more facts:
->the number "100.000" poltical prisoneers was first brought into public by the amnesty report about Iran from 1975. I have all the reports from 1975-1985. Very interesting to compare them...
AI report 1975: AI estimates several thousand. Schah Mohammad reza Pahlavis says there are fewer than 3000. Other Sources say 25.000-100.000.(...)"
So again for our romantic compatriots: 25.000-100.000->what does that mean? I myself would estimate I have 25.000-100.000 Euro on my bancaccount, but I am not sure.....This was an Estimation, not a valid Fact.
1977 AI report: The Shah regime has released 5000 prisoneers (not necc. political pris.!) Parviz Sabeti: there are 3200 polit. pris.
So more interesting: what happened to the rest of the 96800 pris.? No word about them..
The German lang. AI Report 1976 says the following: "(..) ist es unmöglich, die Zahl der politischen Gefangenen im Iran genau zu bestimmen. (...) Schätzungen ausländischer Journalisten und Exilgruppen bewegen sich zwischen 25.000 und 100000. "
Transl: it is not possible to estimate the exact number...Estimation of Foreign journalists and Exilgroups range from 25.000-100.000. "

So: Who were those foreign Journalists? And which Exilgroups? And: Where were these foreign "JOURNALISTS (??)" After the Revolution?
I remember, that Newspapers at that time named AI as source, while AI named Journalists as a source...a vicious cicle.

So: These numbers never were confirmed. Even not by Amnesty.

DoostIran

DoostIran

Let us for a minute assume that your conspiracy theories are correct. So what? Can you blame conspirators for conspiring to benefit their own interests? If as you say the quadrupling of the price of oil had an adverse affect on the economies of the conspirators should they not do all that they can to correct the situation? Or are you under the fairy tale impression that major world powers are in the business of global altruism? Conspirators have always and will always conspire. It is up to those against whom conspiracies are hatched to create conditions in which conspiracies are thwarted.
The Shah was a dictator, authoritarian or whatever you wish to call him. I am not making a value judgment. In fact I believe his heart was in the right place and he genuinely cared for the country and wanted to usher it into the twenty first century. Nevertheless, he was a dictator. So, Shah, for goodness sake, be a dictator! A good dictator, for the lack of a better adjective, has to be amoral. Not immoral, but amoral. In a dictatorship the end justifies the means. It is fun to be a dictator when everything is just hunky dory. But, Shah, do you have what it takes to be a dictator when the you know what hits the fan? Do you have it in you to send out the machine guns to take out tens of thousands of people when your dream of a modern Iran is being jeopardized? And in the process are you willing to go down with the ship? As I said and effective dictator should be amoral and in the pursuit of the end that he has envisaged should be able to employ ruthless means.
If the Shah was honest in assessing his own cojones then he should have arrived at the conclusion that he could never be an effective dictator. In that case you reduce monarchical power and delegate it to elected officials, be they from the left or right, and let the collective wisdom of the Iranian population expressed through their elections deal with conspiracies and any other matters that may have affected our interests. And if you think such a democratic approach is doomed to fail in Iran then, dammit, be a good dictator. See, you can’t have the cake and eat it too.
Once again, I am not denigrating the Shah. As I said I do sincerely believe that he loved Iran and his heart was in the right place but by constantly blaming conspirators you are addressing effects of bad governance and not its cause.

schamsi1

Schamsi1

The rest of your text:
->I agree with you. Either you are a consequent dictator, then fight until the end or organize your departure in a better way. But the writer of the article saw the main reason of our mess in the Shah concerning the first part. And the rest of the world in the second part. And in Islam. That peicture is not complete. The foreign conspiracy is a part of the tragic events of 1979. But of course:
->woithout a Shah, no toppling of a monarchy (Surprise). Without Islam, no Islamic revolution, and without people running after Khomeini without undestanding anything of politics, of course no ISLAMIC REPUBLIC-But without British Petroleum and BBC also no financing of media attacks against the Shah. And without terorrists from lybia and Lebanon no bloody demonstrations at least at the beginning and no "Mejdane Jaleh".
Iranians are searching for the chief culprit! The question is : Wich one was the most important actor oin this dirty game? the People? Khomeini? Modjaheddin? Nationalist? BBC? The CIA? the SAVAK? The Shah? Russia? Islam? ...

It was all of them, what else?? But analysis of a chainreaction cannot beginn in the middle of the chain, that´s to silly and easy. And that is, what Mr. Rashidian has done.

DoostIran

DoostIran

Had the Shah been an effective dictator and massacred all the demonstrators then the revolution would not have happened, in spite of your conspirators. Had the Shah delegated the power to the people earlier in his rule knowing that he is not capable of massacre the revolution would not have happened, in spite of your conspirators. Had the Shah surrounded himself with capable men and women instead of useless sycophants the revolution would not have happened, in spite of your conspirators. So, yes, the Shah is the reason for the ascendancy of Khomeini no matter how you wish to spin it.

schamsi1

Schamsi1

Your question: " Can you blame conspirators for conspiring to benefit their own interests? "

Answer: Yes. I do. It´s not Ok.

Your question: " If as you say the quadrupling of the price of oil had an adverse affect on the economies of the conspirators should they not do all that they can to correct the situation?"

My answer: The raising of oilprices was against the interest of western countries except US. It was good for the FED and Banks of the oil companies. The quadrupling was a coup by the FED to Recycle the Petro Dollars after western countries complained the US was expanding the Dollar emission without guaranty that there was enough gold for coverage. The Dollar was uncoupled from gold and devaluated about 13 % by Nixon, if I remeber well. The western countries like Germany and France cheered, but at the end were duped, because instead they had to collect every Dollar they had for buying oil. The dollar was saved and covered by oil instead of gold.

Conspiracy theory?

(German lang.) Minute 1:13.10
->Oil Minister Yamani: I went to Tehran the Shah to ask for reducing oil prices, he answered: Reducing? Kissinger himself wanted to raise the prices...Go and talk to him.."


Same story, other source:
Henry Kissinger, who coined the term after he oil shock in 1973/74, talked about “recycling petrodollars.” And in fact what happened was – and this came directly from Sheik Yamani privately in a discussion with me at his home in 2000, he said: “I was sent by my King, the Saudi King, as a trusted emissary to talk with the Shah of Iran and ask the Shah why at the September 1973 OPEC meeting after the Yom Kippur war he was adamant about such a huge OPEC price increase as a permanent price.” And he said: “The Shah turned to me and said: ‘Tell His Excellency, the King of Saudi Arabia, if he wants to have an answer to that question, he must go to Washington and ask Henry Kissinger.’” (ix) In other words, this was dictated to the Shah.

Yes.


The Decision to raise the oil prices was told to the europeans at the BILDEBERG conference in 1973 in Sweeden by Kissinger himself. By the way, the Bilderberger-Existance was counted for years as a "Conspiracy theory". Now they even have their own website.

http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php

http://colorrevolutionsandgeopolitics.blogspot.de/2011/05/f-william-engdahl-interview-we-are-in.html

mehrabad

mehrabad Iran ud An-Iran

Thankyou Schamsi1 for not being afraid to question the narrative which was fed to us first by the western media and then by the mullah regime and the rest of the ''parrots'' who simply regurgitate the ''talking points'' they heard from one of their ''tudeh'' family members. I just wanted to point out a couple more things here.
- Even one political prisoner or one execution by individuals in the shah's regime was wrong. Just because the numbers have been so exaggerated does not mean it was just fine. Shah's public relations strategy was also terrible. He should have used the same tactics used by western politicians to deceive their own populations. This was due to his own disdain for politics especially as practiced in the west where people are easily duped by some guy that has millions of dollars of corporate financial backing and media at his disposal. I mean making people stand and listen to ''soroud e shahanshahi'' before very movie in the cinema actually just pissed most people off!
- Also, the shah's complete arrogance in front of the western press and their leaders made them attack him even more! You don't tell a british inteviewer that the ''english are simply too lazy and don't work enough'' when they basically got down on their knees to beg the shah to reduce oil prices. He really thought Iranians were so superior and sophisticated that they would look at their booming economy and huge middle class, international prestige and simply laugh at the western media reports!
- And here is where PERSIAN PRIDE kicked in again, this time on the part of the population. People feed off the narrative that Iran was so great that it ''naturally'' deserves the best of everything. That it was somehow in our genetics that everyone around the world knew about our ''great Persian empire'' and just couldn't wait to just send all of their money our way. That the shah and his ''team'' of thousands of educated Iranians working day and night to bring Iran from the backward, superstitious society it was a hundred years ago had nothing to do with the economic and social progress we were making under his rule. Some other ''realists'' said it was just the oil we possessed. Ofcourse the oil wealth was instrumental in helping us achieve this but what about AFTER the revolution? Did we suddenly run out of oil? What about all the other oil rich countries that are STILL backward? If indeed the shahs government was so corrupt we would still be something along the lines of Pakistan or Afghanistan in terms of developement. Because that is what happens in a situation where there is REAL widespread corruption, like in Iran today or Pakistan, where a small ruling elite takes the entire nation's profits and distributes it among their friends and family.
- Non of this means we can sit and act like it was all someone elses fault or that we should not take responsibility for our ignorant mistakes. It was our own exaggerated sense of pride that even let us be manipulated by others into falling for this. Even to this DAY the mullahs won't leave the shah alone! The man has been dead for over thirty years and the akhoond regime still spends millions of dollars every year trying to convince the world that shah was bad. BABA! SHAH MORD! Lets learn from his mistakes as well as his achievements.
- WHILE WE FIGHT AND ARGUE OVER OPINIONS, THE REST OF THE WORLD LAUGHS AT US! If we unite once and for all then the joke is on THEM! We can all at least agree on the separation of religion and government so lets start there. Then lets carefully examine ALL of the good AND bad decisions of both regimes and come up with an educated and workable compromise. If anyone is interested I would be proud to participate in some productive discourse that will unite us once and for all and SEND RELIGION BACK TO THE MASJID WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE STAYED ALL ALONG!

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Common traits of "analysis" amongst monarchist, & Islamists (& their different variants):

1) All social dynamics are reduced to hidden conspiracies, whereas in the real world social change and transformation are based on objective balance of forces & how these social forced interact.

2) An entire nation is endowed with a static, never changing "national psyche," be it a monarchists "preference," or an eternal "religious" bent. Again the daily dynamics of cultural evolution & change (especially in our globalized era) is completely forgotten.

3) Last but not least, social agency is completely in the realm of "great leaders" (most often accompanied with an Iron Fist or a sharp sword!). The masses and how in their millions they carry out social change never exists in either of these two narratives.

Anglo_Phile

Anglo Phile

May I first congratulate the 35th anniversary of the Islamic revolution of 1979 to all re-invented pseudo-leftists, my good friends Zendan jan and comrade Rashidian for their parts (as insignificant as it may have been) in bringing about Khomeini's regin of terror over us. Now,

Common trends of argument among our home-made (vatani) pseudo-leftist:
(1) Re-invent themselves under new titles and deny anny links to their, shaal we say, less than dodgy, past!
(2) Invent atrocious lies and repeat it over and over again
(3) Slogans, slogans slogans,
(4) unintelligent content whatseover,
(5) total ignorance towards such concepts as religion, culture, language, literature.

There are more but have no time ... :))

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

FYI the revolutionary movement in Kurdistan, along with overwhelming majority of Kurdish population were very suspicious (if not outright hostile) towards the mullahs in Tehran, since day one.
Of course such unease was not confined to Kurdistan or its revolutionary movement, Iranian-Arabs, Baluchis, Turkman, also shared those sentiments.
After 35 years Kurdistan remains the only undefeated bastion of resistance in Iran. The successful General Strikes organized in Kurdistan are the revolutionary dress rehearsal for the nation wide General Strikes the shall overthrow IR.

schamsi1

Schamsi1

@Zendanian
1) "All social dynamics are reduced to hidden conspiracies". FALSE! Where did I write, that social developments are a Theory? Can you show it to me? I did not challenge this fact. Of course there are social developments in every country.

2) Hardcore Monarchists and Hardcore Islamists and Hardcore Communistas and Hardcore Democrats (Dreamers) also both have not understand politics. But: What is wrong with that, if one of them says something true? If Mr. Ahmadinedjad says, the US went into Iraq because of oil, then this is a fact and he is right, but that does not mean, that he is a nice guy and that he can run a country. When a Monarchists say, the US let the Shah fall, the he is right, but that does not mean, that I agree with the rest.

What maybe you do not understand: Both belong together, the social change and the agitation of powerfull elites. For better understanding:

->There are social changes.
->if you want to keep power, let you be a foreigner or inhabitant, you have to consider these changes.
->You analyze the countries social status and then create a Putsch, a revolution or what ever

Means: You cannot create a revolution in germany with "human rights" Campaigns and pictures from Jesus->You need to adress the needs of Germans. I would recommend in that case the use of topics like corruption, tax evasion, employment. In Iran on the other side you cannot raise pictures of Adolf Hitler with his Swastika, people would not go on the streets for that. Today I recommend "Democracy" as an issue and tool.











By the way, learn something from me: Call it THEORY, but not CONSPIRACYtheory.

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Dear sir/madam I haven't even read your comments in here, let alone mentioning your avatar. Since you don't consider yourself neither monarchist, islamist or a variant of either two, you may rest assure you were not a part of what I referred to.
Yes, even a broken watch is correct twice a day,
And yes again, to the reality of on going actual conspiracies, and active conspirators (external & internal) in our country. Yet all these realities do not qualify to elevate existence of conspiracies into conspiracy theory.
And last but not least, a big no to Democracy as a mere tool.
At this juncture in our history with our failed attempts in Constitutional Revolution, the movement for Nationalization of Oil Industry, anti-monarchy movement we have to once & for all do away with all instrumental approaches to democracy, freedom & civil society.
In other words democracy (people's participation in every aspect of decision making about their lives) needs to become both our tactic & stratagem, it needs to be institutionalized & not be seen as a mere "tool."
Of course even then not all social problems will be solved, but that would place us in a fantastic position to tackle ALL our social problems. Cheers