What Is P_J short for? Aghayeh Pesar-Jaan. The issue of National Interests of a People stands above all other Issues. By not grasping this Pesar Jaan you are making fun of a nation that for good reason regrets 1979, in particular the workers who remember how they were deceived and manipulated into taking actions that caused the loss of first their children and second the best and happiest days of their working lives, which they never again saw return. Why be a Pesar_Jaan ???????

Will not respond to closed minded DEGENERATE Shahollahi/Hezbollah character(s). Since, the complexities are too much to digest, especially for a low IQ, not too bright, one track minded “Batcheh”! I am a proud Iranian, and have NEVER made fun of my nation or nationality; yet, I have done so to the degenerate, betraying IDLE of yours, called M R Pahlavi, the traitor! You may not have noticed but there are marked differences between MR Pahlavi, the traitor and his incompetent good for nothing son and Iran or Iranians! They DO not now or have never before represented Iran.

PS: Iran’s revolution was real and against the tyranny of the traitor Shah and SAVAKIS like you; granted it may not have turned out as was expected, truth is that it NEVER does; go read about other revolutions!

Of Course Pesar Jaan and who better to identify a traitor, tyranny, incompetence and a savaki (f.y.i. neither I nor anyone in my immediate family ever worked for Savak) than the epitome of acting with tolerance and co-operation our own pesar jaan. If you are a Proud Iranian, at least please share with us what you have personally accomplished in your life that gives you such pride? My guess is you are a proud Anian, Ir-an without the Ir. so lucky Iran is left with a An, which leads to an Angohlab instead of an Engelab and with an An as PM. lol.

This comment was removed by the Iranian.com Staff for violating our Commenting Standards

"Monarchy, especially in the 3rd world nation(s) settings or environment, has never been democratic or secular" P_J

Iran has always been one man show. It has nothing to do with it's establishment.
In family one man makes decision for the whole family. The opinion of wife and children never count.
In classroom one person so called "Mobser" makes decision for disciplin of the classroom.
In villeges one man makes decision for the whole village. He is so called "Kad khoda" or a little God
what can you expect from these third world countries who have had highest rate of illetracy? What you're complaining is the system of hiracrchy in Iran, NOT the establishment. What you see as "democratic" society in the west refers to the strucrture of families. The society is democratic in nature. Totally different family structure in the democractic society with Iran.
BTW, Iran had been monarchy way before colonial powers come to the picture. Our rich history and "Padeshahi" goes back to anciet time.

" there were STRONG, patriotic and honorable personalities who stood FIRM against these invading thieves" P_J

That was Reza Khan, not mosaddeq. Reza shah the Great stood FIRM against thieves. He siezed all those Qajar's lands. Qajar were stolen those lands from our people. The most famous thieve was Farmanfarmayan family who own half of Iran's land. Reza khan siezed it all. All Qajar's prince and princes were socking blood from our nation. Their lavish desire for land ownership is well document in our history.
You may don't know that Mosaddeq's mother was from Farmanfarmayan family and his father was from Ashtiani clan. His father was minister of finance in the court of Nasser e din shah. No single trace of document your patriatic man ever condemn oil concession signed by his opium addict uncle known as "mosafar e din shah" with Brits in 1901. What kind of patriatic man was he. ?

I am quite aware of Mossadegh’s genealogy; he also was a cousin of Mohammad Ali Shah, and Dame Fakhr-e-dolleh, a daughter of Mozaffaredin Shah, and mother of Dr. Amini, the prime minister? Why should being a highly educated high class disqualify someone like Mossadegh; a man who was a true public servant; a man that lived and breathed, thinking of the betterment of his country and his nation, especially the poor, never taking advantage of his position, either monetarily or otherwise. A man who strived to cut off, foreign dominance? Disqualifying him would disqualify someone in the caliber of Churchill, a man that, most likely, had saved Europe from Nazis and the Nazism!

Then there was Reza Khan, an uneducated, ambitious man who did not even know his father or where he had come from, and that was also FINE, except that he was a tyrant; a thieving embezzler who even murdered in order to confiscate wealth, also those closest to him, i. e. his own court minister Teymourtash, like all paranoid tyrants. He became the richest man in Iran from being a penniless stable boy, ONLY within 15 short years! Despite all that he deserves credit for preserving Iran’s territorial integrity at a critical moment of history, something that Quajar kings could have never been able to do so, and because he was partially responsible for the emancipation of Iranian woman, although halfheartedly, and that is about it!

In contrast, everything that we have in Iran, wealth wise, is because of the oil, and credit goes to Dr. Mossadegh; had it not been for him, Iran would have been another Afghanistan, I believe!

"he (Reza Khan) deserves credit for preserving Iran’s territorial integrity at a critical moment of history, something that Quajar kings could have never been able to do so," P_J

Thanks. That was all I wanted to say. Right on issue.
Thanks again.
Now, let's see if there is any single document in our modern history ever Mosaddeq condemn his mongolian Qajar dynasty.A dynasty which treated Iran like a country of enemy for 140 years. Any document?
Please let me know if you find any document. Oil concession was signed in1901 by Mosaddeq uncle known as Mozafar e din shah. You and I strongly condemn that agreement. Now let's see if Mosaddeq ever condemn that agreement.
BTW,
Mosaddeq achieved his doctra degree in 1914. That year was the peack for our oil being robbed by Brits.
300,000 tons oil was extracted in that year. What Mosaddeq was doing when our oil were getting robbed by Brits?
The extraction of oil reach to double and triple in few years. For example, in 1919 annual income of oil was about 40 million English pound equal to $112.0000.000. From that amount Iran (NOT IRAN it was rather Qajar family) received $7,000,000 and
$105,0000,000 went to Brits pocket.
Seems Qajar family had a lavish life style with our oil money in Europe in those years. They were the same "blue blood" family that you emphasize on their noblety and on their blood line.
Now please enlighten me what Mosaddeq was doing in those years.?
P.S
All above numbers were taken from Pahlavi's sworn enemy. It was taken from Kinzer's book.

Believe it or not, even in Iran we have had a few decent "kings" Karim Khan Zand is probably the most outstanding one. Most probably because he never considered him self a king, and though of himself as a public advocate, Vakil e-Ra'aayaa.

With all due respect I also see a hint of simplification when it comes to, Mossadegh, Gandhi, Amir Kabir, Nasser.
Everyone of these individuals has had a very complex evolution in their personal and political life, including their limitations and mistakes, like any other human being.
Patrice Lumumba is of course a different story, for me at least.

Relatively speaking, as grand as Mosadegh now looks compared to khomeini or shah, we still shan't forget that:
- in his early years while serving in South of Iran had some cooperation with the British authority, suppressing the rebellious natives,
- as a prime minister he ordered the army to fire on striking Oil workers, killing some protestors.
- last but not least, on 27th of Mordad, a day before the coup, when he went on national radio and told people to all go home, and he will call them back if necessary, he never called them back. Why? He had close to zero planing on how to confront the coup.

According to memoirs of Dr. Gholam-Hossein Sedighi, his interior minister, (and also the first Iranian sociologist) on the day of the coup, as the enemy is approaching Mosadegh asks Dr. Sedighi to give him a report back of situation. Dr. Sedighi comes down from the office and asks his driver about the situation, and gives that conversation back to Mosadegh as a report back on the situation.

I like Karim Khan, but his lack of knowledge/education in understanding geo politics cost us dearly; for one thing, it was the dominance over Persian Gulf, which eventually cost us loss of Bahrain.
If you want to know a GREAT, recent monarch, read Shah Abbas’ legacy and see how savvy he was.

I agree with you on his lack of preparedness in the defense against the coup. It may have been resulted from his head security man’s murder/loss, Gen. Afshartous, in the hands of conspirators like Dr. Baghaii, but you always have to have other contingencies, being at that position.

US / UK Policy was to support extremist i.e. Anti-Secular Religious groups, (not the Far Right Muslims) who wanted Islam to run Countries and still does, it helped them with money and arms to everything they needed in order to succeed in their mission of cutting off the heads of all moderate religious people and usurping power. No Conspiracy mindedness is needed considering multiple US institutions are executing this policy. It is National Policy today.

Kinzer made his million $$$$$ on the misery of our people during last 34 years. He was warmly welcomed by Islamic thugs in Iran. Stayed in luxurious hotel of "Laleh", then he developed his theory of 911. He wrote his book "all shah's men" Except the area that he refers to Ayatollah Kashani all his book was quickly translated to Farsi. The reason for censorship Ayatollah Kashani's part relates to Kashani's grand son who works with Ahamadi Negad.
What a beautiful frienship with criminal mullahs.

Kinzer was a correspondent for the New York Times in the 80's and covered Reagan's "war on terror" (as Reagan called it) in central America. During that period, just like any other writer for mainstream US press, Kinzer toed the line and basically presented the mainstream view supportive of US governments actions. It was only after he left the Times that his writings started to become more critical. I don't how one can his career "a beautiful friendship with criminal mullahs", just because his books are translated in Iran!

Ghourbagheh, would it "Surprise You" to hear that Kinzers book is disinformation and is one of the pillars supporting US Foreign Policy for Iran Today, Negative US soft power/the abuse of Mass Media by promoting disinformation for Iranians is intended to manufacture dissent and create misinformed activists among Iranians (Patsys, like the CIA did during 1979). It's details and documents are fabricated, according to participants I interviewed. Not even Kermit Roosevelt would agree with the concoction his government is pursuing as too many false details were used to put it together.

For Academic Honesty notice how Kinzer doesn't discuss how the operation was executed on the US side, how it failed and was aborted, who on the Iranian side came up with an alternate plan, how many days after the CIA agents had left the country did it start and who was tasked to execute it, what US resources were used in the successful plan (i.e. none). No mention of any agreements the late Shah made with the US for Savak to conceal the entirety of Iranian involvement in the later successful plan and the reasons for the CIA to receive full credit for the success of the plan and what the shah would receive in return. Lets suppose Kinzer is not a paid agent and give him the benefit of the doubt. My question is why is he presenting a false picture that any person who interviewed people involved in the operation would disagree with? Ghourbagheh whether you or millions like you are made into Patsys is a pity for Iran, because Iran is your country too, at least enterain the thought of why the USA wants to create people with your views. Start using your wisdom and stop reading so much, so you can protect yourself from becoming a patsy like Zendanian who has created views about many issues without speaking to or knowing on a personal basis any of the key people involved. If you are truly a proponent of democracy then why do you like Zendanian not use Socrates method for developing and using your wisdom???????

If it was just Kinzer, I might give you that. But it's not. Another great book on the CIA is Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" with a chapter on the 1953 coup in Iran. Oh, Weiner is lying too, of course!? See my comment below to Shirzadegan for the rest.

Are You kidding me, you read the same thing in 2 books and that is the truth for you? In contrast to me interviewing 4 people involved in the real operation? You have any idea how many people work for the CIA, which specializes in covert operations to implement US foreign policy of Today including the funds and employees that work in the media???????

From their employees.

"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting "intelligence" justifying those activities. [McGehee says he has never once seen a CIA official tell the truth to Congress. Instead comes a steady stream of lies. - Ed.] It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapon capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies.

Do you know why the CIA gave the false Intelligence report on the late shahs personality? Or why they invented the false report that the IRI had stopped work on a Nuke in 2003? Both were to execute foreign policy, in one case to kill a king and dethrone him, in the other to keep the IRI in power and make sure its ally Israel would not bomb the IRI as that would lead to its collapse.

Kinzers Book is CIA policy to a T. and disinformation,
I am not saying that anyone could fool a ghourbagheh or an entire nation for that matter???????
No, never seen that happen before.

Wow! You are doing great! Please continue. I'll tell you a little secret. I interviewed the Shah himself, and he told me that CIA staged the coup and brought him back to be a sock puppet for the US government. Now, as far as your type of evidence goes, I think a personal interview with Reza tops your four interviews. I heard it from the horses mouth!

Notice, in all this neither you nor any of the other monarchist here argue that 1953 was a coup. That makes it by definition a violation of democracy.

I am replying to you not because I think there is an adult on the other end, but because I know there isn't and I want to do damage control to make certain you do not mis-inform any more Iranians that want to get to the truth. I personally can speak for myself and say that based on speaking with officers involved in bringing Mossadegh to Justice, 1953 was not a coup. The obvious reason for this statement is a fair description of the facts, for example the constitution of Iran clearly states (even for children like you) that should a Prime Minister that is appointed by the King dissolve Parliament, they King may remove the Prime Minister and select another Prime Minister. There you go. The Iranian Constitution of 101 (strangely it is never read or discussed among either Ignoramuses or anti-monarchists). So the King ordered Mossadegh to step down, Mossadegh refused and broke the Law, the Military enforced the Law and captured Iran's first criminal despot, he was tried for treason for not upholding the constitution of Iran and refusing to step down as was required, the KING PARDONED him from being executed, because the king was a truly Generous and Peaceful human being (described by anti-monarchists & ignoramuses as being weak out of personal cluelessness). At no point in Time Is restoring the law of the land and the National Constitution in My Book or in any other Intelligent persons book a coup. Just because Monarchists do not answer objectionable Ignorance back with some easily verifiable knowledge doesn't mean they approve of objectionable Ignorance. Ignorance like yours is a high constant that exists not because of other countries covert actions alone, but many other factors. Reza Pahlavi wasn't even alive or had any participation in the events you are discussing, are you saying in your version of wisdom and knowledge, Reza Pahlavi toops those responsible for restoring the late king from a failed coup by mossadegh? Your thoughts have alot of pesar jaan in them, pesar jaan. Lets learn to walk first, again check you data if you don't want to risk being a patsy, look at the older generation in Iran and the humiliation they face at the hands of the IRI and at least appreciate that you have a chance to figure out where they made a mistake, not that with pesar jaan thoughts you will of course.

I can tell you from personal interviews with people involved in the coup that the Shah's actions were treasonous and orchestrated by the British and Americans. I have first hand information that attest to the fact that the Shah was a shameful criminal selling Iran and Iranians cheaply to foreign powers in a coup to destroy Iranians' aspirations for democracy. The people that I know have given personal accounts that prove beyond any doubt that the Pahlavi dynasty were installed by the British and supported by the Americans. Shah violated not just the constitution, but also all of Iran. He was a traitor, a despot, a dictator, and he sold out his own people. It is only in the minds of Pahlavi cult fossils that history is rewritten to cleanse the Pahlavi shame.

It is natural for me to be accommodating as much as reason and emotion allow me. I agree with you that the British and Americans have shown and continue to show no interest in peace, freedom, justice, human rights or democracy for Iran, beyond that is where we part. Unfortunately your views are reliable, as are the consensus of Iranians that make up their minds based on village gossip, tv, radio, books etc. It is not always possible for such Iranians to realize how reliable they are because they are is among those people who have absolutely no idea that what they're saying is inaccurate.

Kinzer travelled to Iran in 2002. Stayed at 9th floor of Hotel Laleh in Tehran. He also visisted Mosaddeq house in Ahmad Abad. He talked with many people in Ahmad Abad. He developed the theory of 9/11. In his nickle head, he hypothesized if shah wouldn't return to crown in 1953, America wouldn't face the tragedy of 9/11. According to Kinzer, fundamentalism structured based on U.S intervention in 1953 in Iran. This hypothesis was supported by left wing media in the U.S to the extend that some people truely believed U.S intervention in Iran in 50's was the cause of terrrorism in the world.
His book was quickly translated to Farsi. The part that belonged to Ayatollah Kashani was censored because Kashani grand son is still working with AhmadiNegad. Kinzer made a furtune by selling that book. The book was written with bias against Pahlavi dynasty. it was written in favor of criminal mullhas or rather melli mazhabi. Criminal Islamic gang in charge in Iran loved the book. Kinzer made his millions over the misery of Iranian people. That is another alliance between Melli, Melli mazhabi with ruling mullahs in Iran. They are all against happiness of our people. They're the one who supported mullahs and they're continuing to do so.

The keywords in your text are "left wing media" and "Pahlavi dynasty". The usual logic is that if an Iranian has a low opinion of Pahlavis, he is either pro-IRI, a traitor, or an idiot. If a Westerner has a low opinion of Pahlavis, he is left wing, pro-IRI, or an idiot. Only monarchists are smart and intelligent and that is why most of them are sitting in London and LA, and not in Tehran! Somehow with the immense insight of monarchists and Pahlavis, they just couldn't foresee the revolution.

Just look at how you are arguing your point. You wrote twice (above comments) that Kinzer stayed at the luxurious hotel Laleh in Iran. You are stating this as supporting material for your assertion that IRI has pampered Kinzer to write biased information. Let's analyze this. I don't know if it is true, but lets assume that Kinzer stayed at hotel Laleh. So what? Which hotel is a Western traveller to Iran (journalist or otherwise) going to stay at? Iran does not have a large tourism industry catering to Westerners. Is it surprising that a Westerner might stay at a luxury hotel in Iran? Most diplomats, including the ones that want to push for sanctions against Iran, stay at luxury hotels in Iran. Are they biased too? Where do you think Amano, the general director of IAEA who jumps at every command of US, stays at when he goes to Iran? Some 'mosaferkhaneh' in a back alley? So, if Amano stays in luxury hotels, then Amano is biased in favor of IRI, and therefore he writes reports that help US/UK/Israel pass sanctions against Iran!!! Great logic!

Then you assert that Kinzer's book was cleaned up and published in Iran. Again, what does that prove? Paulo Coelho's novels are popular reads in Iran, and his stuff is hardly "Islamic". Is he on IRI's payroll too? Despite the censorship in Iran, you can practically find any book you want. I bought "bistoseh sal" in Tehran, and that book will get you in a heap of problems in Iran! Kinzer's books are translated into Farsi, with and without omissions. Iranians like to read!

The real issue is that Pahlavi supporters can not deal with anyone who looks at history and comes up with a negative view of the Pahlavis. Therefore, Kinzer is lying, Dean Acheson was lying when he said the association of Mosadegh with communists were false, CIA's own documents outlining the coup are fabricated, and anyone else that says CIA staged a coup in Iran to bring back the Shah is lying. Everyone is lying, except for the sycophants lined up to coronate "Prince" Reza! Pahlavis were puppets in Iran. They tortured and sold out Iranians, just like the current Mullahs of the Islamic Republic (shielding myself against the inevitable IRI-agent charge!). They were puppets for the British and the Americans, and they have no future in Iran as they are currently. I know that's a terrifying picture for the monarchists, but they'll just have to deal with it.

My comment was detail description of Kinzer's journey to Iran. In fact, he said he stayed in room number 911 in Hotel Laleh in Tehran. Was there any connection between him and all those melli and Melli mazhabi who were partially working with criminal mullahs? I know he met Mosaddeq grand son who study law. I know he was very close friend of Amini's family. I am sure there were some connection. To what extend? I am not sure. I let the viewer makes his/her own judgement.
At the same time, I am sure people such as Steven Kinzer, Christian Amanpoor made millions on the misery of Iranian people. No doubt about it.
Ervan Abrahamian quoted from Dean Acheson that communist threat was "smoke screen". Now, I searched all over to see when he ever said such a thing. I couldn't find any document.
No radio talk show. No televiosion show. No book. No literature from Acheson to support Abrahamian's claim. Seems he said it secretly to Abrahamian when he was in "death bed". Apparently,he died after making that confession secretly to Abrahamian.!!!!!
Acheson was articulate man and he should have written some books or something to support that idea. Indepth reseach of Mark Gasiorowski denies such a statement by Acheson. He clearly says U.S involvement was intended to prevent Soviet hands from Iran.
"They (Pahlavi dynasty) were puppets for the British and the Americans, and they have no future in Iran as they are currently" ghou.....

The above statement was what criminal mullahs used in 70's. They used this kind of language to deceive our people and eventually they took power.
This is how the psychogy behind these allegations work.
First it targets people's national pride by saying your leader is puppet of foreign power. Of course, no one like his/her leader to be puppet. Therefore, the claimer create an atmosphere to prove his/her point. The first question comes to the mind relates to the fact what patriatic Iranians should do to avoid being puppet?. Here comes the preacher main agenda : Mullahs are fundamentally against western culture and western values. As we know Islamic values is sharply in contrast with western values. Therefore, Mullahs are the only ones who can protect Iranian interests against westerners. The naive Iranians fall for that logic. Consequently, We experienced 34 years agony of our nation.
These days, Iranians are smarter than 70's. They already experienced all those allegations against shah, America...... All were false, lies and trick. All those historical fabrications were intended to put criminal mullahs on power. We all know it now. Our nation paid heavy price to find out the truth. Our people suffered for 34 years. Milliion Iranians lost their sweet lives, but they finally realized what happened to them. They were able to see the faces of Khaens who back stabb them by making false accusations against shah, America, English, or any other foreign power. The monsters set a fire on Cinema Rex in Abadan and blamed it on shah and SAVAK. The monsters claimed shah is giving "free oil" to America. They made whatever it took to reach power.

Just a friendly reminder,
This blog is written about Mosaddeq, NOT shah or SAVAK....etc.
I was wondering who has Alzheimer?

you're the only one who make sense in this blog.

You observations about he above mentioned individuale seems to be very accurate and correct.

"In a Monarchy you cannot have Secularism simply because Monarchy is a very restricted and back-warded religion itself."

You are so right Marthon-Man. Just look at such countries as Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain and Japan. All "backwarded" countries infested with extrme religiosity. Nobody could put it better than you did.Well done!

Keep running!

Democracy Ranking 2012 Google, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=democracy+rankings+2012&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Some time on google would definitely be productive for Marathon-Man.

http://www.rangin-kaman.org/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8054:2012-06-08-14-44-49&catid=34:politique

رضا جون

ترا به خدا یه رحمی به این دندونای من بیچاره بکن. بعضی‌ از جوابای تو اون‌قدر "دندون شکن هستن" که من هر بار که میخونمشون باید یه سر برم سراغ دکتر دندون و کلی‌ مخارج بالا میاره. ما خرگوشا فقط دلمون به این خوشه که گاهگاهی یه هویج پیدا کنیم گاز بزنیم. اینطور که تو جواب میدی دیگه دندونی نمی‌مونه که باهاش بشه هویج خورد. آخه انصافم خوب چیزیه رضا جون.

If you're going to make comparisons, you should do it on an absolute scale!

1) Norway and Denmark are extreme outliers for several reason the most important one being their low population and geographic location. By your standard, it may be possible to set up a fantastic monarchy on a small island in the middle of the pacific. But that does not translate to the rest of the world. A critical analysis would ask, what would have happened if Norway and Denmark had large reserves of oil, or were strategically located so that another Imperialist power would be interested in them? Hint: look at the fate of the Irish monarchy!

2) That brings me to the monarchy that most monarchists here aspire to, the British monarchy. This one is also a different outlier. It exists in the form it does because of pure inhumanity towards others. As a side note, a good number of Brits think that the British monarchy is a leech sucking on the British economy and should be abolished. The wealth stolen by the Spanish and Portugese enriched their British and Dutch creditors, which in turn strengthened the British monarchy to the point that it could violate the rest of the planet, like a typical neighborhood thug. Do you really want a monarchy like that in Iran, and even if you're inhumane enough to do so, do you really think it's possible?

3) Spain and Japan are also bad examples because of historical reasons. I won't get into the details. I would point out that you think they are such great countries today when they are not in fact monarchies, regardless of the remnants of the old monarchy. Again, an honest analysis would point out the state of those countries when they were really monarchies. For example, how backward was imperial Japan when they were doing human experiments in Manchuria, or when the "rape of Nanjing" was carried out? How backward was Spain, when the conquistadors were feeding their dogs Native American babies? And of course, today one can find plenty of Japanese and Spaniards who will whitewash their monarchy's shameful past in the face of all the historical evidence, verbatim like the Iranians who whitewash the Pahlavi's record (often by contrasting the Pahlavis to IRI, which is a very low standard!

4) Considering Iran's oil wealth and geographic location, a more honest example of a monarchy would be all the Arab dictatorships around it. In every single one of the Arab monarchies, the current ruling houses were hand picked by Britain, France, and US to rule as satrapy despots. I won't mention that the same thing applies to the Pahlavi monarchy. However, how backward are all those Middle Eastern monarchies? This is a more realistic comparison.

My point is that if you want to present examples of "good" monarchies, you ought to look at those that fit. People are not stupid, even if monarchists would like to call all Iranians disagree with them stupid!

This man is a Shahollahi/Hezbollah character, uninterested in facts or making any sense. He is comparing apples and oranges and like his cohorts in total denial of facts! Comparing a 3rd world nation state setting to Sweden or Norway is nothing short of IDIOTIC or being maliciously engaged is distortion of facts. The above mentioned nations have had literacy rates exceeding 90% for years if not centuries. Our literacy rates improved after M R Pahlavi, the traitor, was kicked out in disgrace and not before. Major part of democracy is democratic thinking that demands high levels of literacy and an astute populace that we did not have then and we do have now!

Toad khan very interesting analysis.
Couple of things that monarchists, and almost all other undemocratic forces in Iran, are blind to are: the working class, and civil society.

In case of Sweden and Norway none of that prosperity would have been possible without workers' unions and prevalence of social democracy, as a way of life.

What we had in Iran from late 40's to early 50's was the most developed and extensive Civil Society in the entire Middle Eastern region.

Iran had the highest rate of newspapers, journals, political, social and civil parties, trade unions and organization for almost every single type of labor, women organizations, youth and student organization, writers and poets associations,...

All of this vast incredible social capital was to be squandered by shah's rule, which eventually degenerated into an ultra-nationalist single party system.

Did Mosadegh have a chance to proclaim a republic? He resigned in 1952, in protest of the Shah's (that great secular monarch!) refusal to allow Mosadegh some of the right's of the prime minister guaranteed by the constitution. He came back at the height of his popularity in January of 1953. In April 1953, the British and Americans started operation Ajax. So, in four month and in a country in turmoil and under threat from the Western powers and Russia, Mosadegh failed to proclaim a republic!!!!? Even if you want to stretch his window of opportunity to his entire time in office (1951-1953) then how can anyone expect Mosadegh to proclaim a republic, especially in the state that Iran was?

I don't know if Mosdegh would have been a democrat or would have created a republic in Iran. No one knows. He didn't have a chance. But history has been cruel to the man, especially his compatriots! However, we can look at what he didn't do in his short time on Iran's political scene and extrapolate to what he may have done. He didn't steal, sell himself to foreign powers, or take away civil rights of Iranians. That speaks volumes.

It is also an ABSOLUTE logical fallacy to attribute the Islamic regime to whatever Mosadegh may not have done. Isn't it obvious that the 1953 coup was the seed of the 1979 revolution? You talk of our "today's aspirations." How can we blame Mosadegh when he was in power for four month. The problem IS Iranian's aspirations. There is a mini-IRI today in most Iranians. Look at this website. You have people here who openly declare that SAVAK was great and it should have done more! The only thing that we all can agree on (more or less) is that IRI is terrible. But in doing so, IRI has become our standard, hence the monarchy was great! As if, Iranians just can do no better.

It's cruel to blame Mosadegh. I blame Iranians. We are not cohesive, and we always allow a few traitors to ruin our future. From Alexander's invasion, and the Arab invasion, to the 1953 coup, the theme of Iran is the same. A few who would sell their mothers cheap have sold us all...

The lies that you speak of told by Hollywood, Western Press, etc. are all in FAVOR of your own view. Those sources may not produce exact carbon-copies of your so-called "facts", but nonetheless, they try to whitewash Western support for a tinpot dictator.