COUPS

To: Dr. Akbari

I appreciate your resonse.

Points well taken.

Yours,

Ali P.

Most Iranians Reject the Abhorring Islamic Republic

Dear Mr. Ali P.

I intently want to clarify a sentence in my previous reply to you, in which I state: "Moreover, today in Iran, most people want to have a referendum for expressing their support for the Islamic Republic." The word rejection/ was dropped (right before the word support) inadvertently. I am confident that most, if not all, Iranians will reject the dark regime of the Islamic Republic in such a referendum.

Reply to Your Kind Commentary

Dear Mr. Ali P.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comments/questions and I am sorry for a belated reply due to my busy schedule. I believe some of your questions are already answered by my colleague, Dr. Kazemzadeh.

Here is a suggested reading and a brief explanation by me:

1) There is a detailed and reasoned article by Dr. Abbas Tofigh that addresses your questions about the 1953 Coup and I kindly ask you to read it at:

//www.omid-e-iran.blogfa.com/post-250.aspx

2) Referendum is the most democratic method to resolve acute political and social conflicts. Iran was engaged in a national and democratic struggle against the largest Empire in the world and its internal allies, and for Mossadegh, advancing this struggle required the expression of national will. Mossadegh merely sought to have a vote from the people of Iran on the question of continuing his nationalization and democratization program through a direct referendum about the fate of Majlis.

While there was precedence in the form of a planned referendum by the renowned Moshirodolleh earlier in the century, the lack of precedence does not nullify the need for referendums or other new and democratic means in a society. About 10 years after the downfall of Mossadegh, Shah held a referendum for his White Revolution. Moreover, today in Iran, most people want to have a referendum for expressing their support for the Islamic Republic.

2) Shah was a constitutional Monarch. Referendum did not question his position or role. He could rightly engage in a dialogue with Mossadegh about the dissolution of the Parliament through the referendum, if he had concerns. He rather opted for a Coup supported by the foreign powers. Mossadegh was bound by the constitution and were he given the time to hold the elections, the next Majlis could hand him a vote of No Confidence, if the newly elected representatives wanted to. Mossadegh did not intend to overthrow Shah as is known by the events between 25 and 28th of Mordad. In that period, when the Shah fled the country, He could easily declare the end of Pahlavi Dynasty, but he did not. This was in spite of the prodding of some of his closest allies. Mossadegh was a constitutionalist, a true believer in the nascent democracy provided by the Constitutional Revolution and embodied in the text of Constitution.

Thanks again for your comments and questions.

Sincerely,

Hamid Akbari

Hurricane Ike

Masoud,

Sorry to read someone died in your area. Hope things get better in your area.

//cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9750207

Good to see you back

Good to see that you are doing well. We have been crippled with Train Strikes and a new form of hurricain in France that had crippled the traffic. Its name PAPE MOBILE: Benedict XVI ;0)

EEN SARKOZY HAM Chegadre Mazhabi shodeh bah eenkeh Zanesh kheily Sexy hast ;0)

Dariush

Dariush jaan,

Thanks.  I am fine.  Unfortunately, there was one fatality in town and there are lots of damage.  A lot of trees fell, a lot of electricity lines are down, and there is no electricity in town.  However, my university has its own power plants (I think at least 2) and has underground lines, so all the university buildings are fine.  I am in my office and working (well being here having fun as well as well).

Best,

MK

P.S. Yes, Ike and I do not mix apparently.

Of the rigged referendum and hurrican Ike

Back in 1953 a referendum was held by Mossadegh in Iran that effectively sealed his fate and resulted in his demise. To this day, Mossadeghi fanatics and fundamentalists, like their counterparts and former allies in the Hezbollah, have hopelessly struggled to whitewash this collosal error but much to their dismay, they see that no matter how many layers of white plaster they splash on this ugly stain, it still refuses to go away and no amount plaster, white chalk, detergent or decolorizing agents can make it look acceptable in the eye of the public.

The false accounts, incorrect data and put it plainly, lies, fired away, in his chracteristically robotic style, by one member of this Mossadeghi Mob, i.e. Mr Kazemzadeh, is a clear example of such hopeless attempts.

Massoud Kazemzadeh jumps from one fabricated account to another:

"Referendum is the highest form of democracy, whereby the people directly decide upon a major public policy, or constitutional amendments, and the like. In fact, one may ratify a constitution with a referendum, or revise it via referendum. Dr. Mossadegh using the referendum to abolish that particular parliament (and new elections to be held for a new parliament to be followed) is not anti-democratic; it is going directly to the people."

There is no such thing as highest or lowest forms of democracy unless invented by MK. We have direct dmocracy and representative democarcy. Each of these styles have their own application BUT UNDER NO, legislative system, including Iran's contitution of 1906, and the British (unwritten) constiution which MK (wrongly) alleges to have served as a model for the Iranian constitution, CAN A REFERENDUM BE HELD WITHOUT AN ACT OF THE PARLIAMENT.. Mosssadegh, having no constitutional authority to dissolve the parliament, and in his typical authoritarian style, pulled out the majority of memebrs out of the Mjlis and effectively rendered it disfunctional. By the way, MK even gets the legislative period wrong. It was the 16th Majlis that was the subject of the illegal referendum and NOT 18th or 19th Majlis as wrongly stated by MK. The 16th Majlis was the SAME Majlis to which Dr Mossadegh was elected and the SAME majlis that approved of his appointment as the Prime Minister. Therefore how was it the SAME Majlis was not bought or influenced by the foreign forces when they voted Mossadegh into office but two years later the SAME majlis is accused by Mossadegh as being traitors!! No legislative power was there to enable Mossadegh to the judge, jury and the executioner. THE CONSTITUTION OF 1906 EMPOWERED THE MONARCH TO APPOINT AND REMOVE A PRIME MINISTER IN THE ABSENCE OF A FUNCTIONAL MAJLIS. Furthermore, without a Mjlis in residence, to pass an act of parliament, NO REFERENDUM COULD HAVE BEEN HELD LEGALLY. Even the illegaly held referendum was rigged. The question was unconstituional and the ballot boxes were separate, each closely watched by the Mossadeghi mobs.

In his desparation to justify Mossadegh's illegal referendum, MK jumps on the US Presidential power and says that the Preseident can hold a referendum. Didn't you say the Iranian constitution was based on the British and the Belgiam ones? So where does the US constitution come into it?

Again according to the British constitution, referendum's outcome is non-binding. The Parliament, is the supreme sovereign and has the final say in going ahead with the outcome or not.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#United_Kin...

In going against the principles of democarcy Mossadegh is the exact opposite of Mohatma Gandhi, who while opposing the British rule in India, respected the rule of the law and accepted all the charges that were brought against him in the court and willingly went to prison. Here is the difference between a true champion of democracy (Gandhi) and a pure demagouge (Mossadegh). In a sad irony, in abolishing the very Majlis who brought him into power, Mossadegh was encouraged by another demagouge ruler whose fortunes were brought to an end in a very different way. His name Adolph Hitler
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

No amount of "maastmaali" Mr Kazemzadeh can absolve your Fuhrer from setting fire to his Reichstag.

Now, I am ready for your robotic and repititve singing of the same old mantras.

We See Eye To Eye Masoud Jan ;0)

Thanks for the lengthy response dear friend.

Look forward to the article you are writing for the Iranian too. 

And Stay Safe, my friend I hope  "IKe" aka Eisenhower will not betray you once again ;0)

Jokes aside hope all will be OK with the comming tornado and pray for no material or physical damage to your house and family, let us know if all went OK.

take care,

D

Dariush Jaan

Dear friend Dariush jaan,

1. Thank you for the historical overview. I really liked the photos. You have done a wonderful job with the photos. Sepaas gozaram az tamam zahmat shoma.

2. Actually Reza Shah did a lot of good works. Primarily his keeping Khuzestan province in our hands despite UK support for Sheikh Khazal. We owe a debt to Reza Shah on that one.

3. On Azerbaijan, we owe a lot of thanks to a number of people including Qavam and Truman. After 30 Tir, Dr. Mossadegh did not allow a single strand of hair of Qavam to be harmed and he repeatedly mentioned that Qavam’s role in keeping Azerbaijan was a great service he performed for Iran.

4. Historical figures are more complex than the caricatures some times are painted of them in partisan battles. Once the heat of such partisanships fade away, we are better able to appreciate their strengths as well as their flaws.

5. JM supports a referendum on the fundamentalist regime. I think the best first step would be a referendum simply asking the people: "Velayat Faghih: ari ya nah?" Considering that the fundamentalist hard-liners are probably 10% of the population and the reformist fundamentalists are around 5%, that would leave about 85% of the Iranian people voting against the fascist fundamentalist regime. I think it would be best to have ONLY one question on the referendum. This way ALL opposition groups would be UNITED in asking the people to vote NO. This would prevent the regime and its agents to deceive the people and sow disunity.

Once the fascist regime is removed, then I have no problem with having a second referendum on jomhuri or monarchy. I think most JM people think that there should be a 100% free election to a constitutional convention in which all groups can nominate their representatives (monarchists, republicans, communists, Mojahedin, etc). The first vote of the delegates could be: monarchy or republic. If the monarchists insist on a popular referendum before the election to the constitutional convention, then I have no problem with that demand.

6. I agree with you that it would be a great idea to have the remains of Mohammad Reza Shah and Reza Shah buried in Iran.

7. After sending the fascist fundamentalist regime to the garbage can of history, we need to have ashti melli (national reconciliation). ALL Iranians living anywhere will be welcomed to THEIR home. No exception. Period, no buts or ifs. We need to replace politics from being a life-and-death struggle with a healthy non-violent competition. This would require that while we express our disagreements, we defend the rights of ALL to exist and live. No assassination, no executions, no repression, no exile. I am working on a formula on this issue. When it is done I will post it at iranian.com for comments and criticisms.

Specifically, after the establishment of democracy, Reza Pahlavi and ALL Iranians should be able to come back to their homes and live as they so desire.

8. Thank YOU sooooooooooooo very much for adding your name to the Amir-Entezam petition.

9. I should have added my name to the petition against child executions. I will do so after I post this reply. Thank you for bringing it up to my attention.

10. If I missed any point, please let me know and I will try to the best of my abilities to respond (and assuming that I survive hurricane Ike which is on its way towards my house). We assume that we would not have electricity if we get hit by Ike.

Best wishes,

Masoud

my apologies for the typos.

:-(

Dear Masoud Kazemzadeh One Small error I think ...

Masoud Jan,

I believe the 1906 Constitution was actually drafted from the Belgian Constitution and not the British. Probably by Francophilia of Iranians and Belgium was a good compromise between Republican France and British Monarchy both systems they did not want to look like entirely. So the Belgians and Tintin did the job if you will ;0)

Both of course being Constitutional Monarchies. I also would like to add one element that I believe should be considered and that is that the Shah in all fairness did reign and not rule as a constitutional monarch for at least 12 years.

The psychological impact of being bullied out of office by Mossadegh ( after all a Qajar ) should explain if not pardon the Shah's retaliation through what you call a Coup but I humbly consider a Counter Coup from a purely legal point of view.

That does not excuse the turn of events that did fragilize subsequently the power of the Parliament and its fairly democratic national representation before Mossadegh's dissolution. But it does explain I think the test of wills in this struggle between Mossadegh's followers and the Shah and his own constituency.

It was I think a sign of Mossadegh's over confidence and I am afraid to say bluntly a particularly naive political gesture.

The conditions of staging a referandum on grounds of nationalism seems to me also quite abrupt. Lets look at some facts very logically.

Iran's Constitutional Revolution was as you certainly know better than me was victorious only after the constitutionalists were actually defeated and gunned down by the Qajar King and with the help of his Tzarist Colonel Liakoff and British Allies. 

However the Revolution that was crushed in the streets became something of an Iranian ALAMO Last Stand. In other words a little like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae the battle was lost but the War was won ( See My article Battle for the West )against Absolute Rule of the King.

The already crumbling and impopular Qajar Dynasty was faced with a harsh dillemma:

Either Modernize itself by allowing a Constitution to be drafted and give up on so called Divine Rule like nearly all European monarchies at the time ( and even before the Russian Tzars)

Or

Dissappear as a result of a Civil War.

So they choose to have a Parliament and Constitution. The Qajar Shah says OK but Royetoon Roh Ziad Nakoneed if not pedaretoonoh dar meeyaram. So its a kind of hypocritical but necessary mutual compromise ( very much like between Charles Ist of England and the Parliament. before Cromwell came in to mess up everything with his religious revolution) in order to at least guarantee Civil Peace. Its Not an ideal democracy but at least we have a Parliament that votes laws. Its at least a modern step forward.   WE ACCEPT A CORRECT REVOLUTION Say's the Shah.

"Correct" It Say's it all ...

Now lets go forward in Time: Reza Shah topples the last Qajar Monarch a Kind hearted, inexperienced kid put on the Peacock throne by birth and at a very young age. Reza Shah takes over like all founders of the Persian Dynasties since the Aecheminids. First he says OK I am an illiterate Cossak trained Officer I trust the People's choice and if they wish to have a Republic with me as President Why Not ? Peoples Choice ? When did the People in our country have a choice or know how to make one properly given the inexistance of a democratic tradition ( long enough that is: We are in 1926 and that makes 20 years since the 1906 Revolution) Obviously he is not naive and knows a minimum of his country's history and knows that the majority of dahaty minded Iranians ( sorry but that was what we  were as a majority. Sad Fact but Very true in demographic terms and I say this with no animosity for my dahaty ancestors) hardly have heard of the French Revolution and that the Iranian Intelligenstia is first and foremost nationalist even if they have read Rousseau, Voltaire and all the Lumiere philosophers.

Iran was never entirely governed on the basis of good and noble principles after all ? Particularly at the dawn of the 20th century but first and foremost by an Iron fist that had a grip on the Army. So who better than Reza Khan to guarantee order and civil peace ? A good comparison of Iran in those days would be the situation in Afghanistan today. Do you think that Karzai can maintain his seat as President only by listening the Loya Jirga a tribal parliament ? Karzai counts on Foreign Help and his side kick head of the military to keep control of the country and try his best to keep it united. Don't forget that even Republican as he is Karzai supported the return of the Old King of Afghanistan. He did not want to restore the monarchy but Karzai very well could have done it for he was a Royalist by heart and wished the King to proclaim a Constitutional Monarchy. Given his old age and lack of ambition of his sons who grew up and lived most of their lives in Italy. Karzai finally had to come to the conclusion that he could at best simply ask him to accept to open the Loya Jirga. And we know the rest ... The king dies in Afghanistan and has a national funeral as Icon of the nation. But the country is now a Republic. Iran's parliament at the time of Reza Shah was a little more sophisticated than Afghanistan's  Loya Jirga today but lets face it we were a poor country and hardly a super power. Reza Khan was the right man ( not maybe the good man but the right man) in the right place and I can bet that ANYONE in his shoes would crown himself King and create a new Dynasty and take pride in his Aechemenid ancestors (like the Qajars actually did before the Pahlavi's believe it or not: take a look at the pictory section I largely help created with impartiality and objectivity).   

Reza Khan now Reza Shah is the Big Boy in town and needs to reassure his allies that he is the Big Boss now but like any revolutionary government ( which we in Iran we usually end up calling new Dynasty, including the turbaned one today) he has to make sure his powerful neighbours ( Communist Bolchevik Soviet Union having replaced Tzarist Russia) and foes (Great Britain) will tolerate him at best and prove that it is in the interest of everyone to have a STABLE Iran and no useless War which would end up by either turning Iran into a colony of Great Britain and Russia or a useless and costly war which would end up with the same result given the disproportional forces in presence. What could Reza Shah do with a small army and guns and swords against a Trained and powerful Russia allied to Great Britian ( The British having abandoned their cousin the Tzar ( Nicolas II was a cousin of the British monarch ) to guarantee good relations with the new government ). So this is all in the Family business and a status quo that guarantees the common interests of the British and the Ruissians.

So what else is left for Reza Shah to do in order to guarantee his authority and legitimacy ( won by the will of the sword). Promote Iranian nationalism like his dear Republican friend Kemal Ataturk. We are at the wake of WWII and during the previous decade Reza Shah has created allies with the Germans ( first the Kaizer then the Nazis) and the Italians (  who built our Navy) and good relations with the French Republic . all this so as to create a strong industry infrastructure and army added to also emanicpating Iranians starting by the women and giving everyone an education they deserved. Maybe the Previous Qajar Shah would have done it too but he was out of the picture. Reza Shah is the providential man, King, Father, Prophet call him what you want BUT he is the Man in charge and creates his new Dynasty from the Rubble. Weds his son the Egypts Royal Family through Fawzia and tries his best to give some meaning to his rule and place in history ( who wouldn't King or President in his place). That irritates the British more than the Russians ( who had after all signed a pact of non aggression with Nazi Germany that lasted till 1941) who say that this illiterate guy who thinks he is King wants to play the Smart Ass. OK Listen You Russians don't forget what we the British helped you with your revolution and closed our eyes on you assassinating our Kings cousin the Tzar  Now its your turn to help us. Stalin the New Tzar but with a Red Star says Sorry but we don't owe you anything at this stage and have no interest in interfering in the internal affairs of a neighbouring country. Churchill swallows his cigar and promises to get even with the bloody Red Russian Bear.

So what happens in 1941 ? When the Great Britian is the only one left in Western European Democracies to resist bravely against the bloody Nazis?

Well my Friend: Adolf is no more friend with Joseph: OPERATION BARBAROSSA on 22 june 1941 Hitler Invades Russia ( Soviet Union) to Stalin's surprise.

So to guarantee their resistance against their new enemy Stalin turns an ear to Churchill's proposition to topple the Pro German Pahlavi so called "Tyrant" and Open the Way to what they called A Bridge to Victory ( see pictory WWII.... )

Some Explanation needed here:

A "Tyrant" maybe but one who was nevertheless regarded as a "Great Man" by most of his compatriots  ( even to this day) and who was therefore much admired and loved by his people despite his strong fist.

Why ? you may rightly ask. And the answer is that he had RESULTS that benefited the majority and the interests of his people and their future ( Education, unity, civil peace etc ... Except Democracy) and NOT because he was tender ( he is said to have thrown a baker in an hot oven ( true or false ? We Iranians like to exagerate as you know but I think he was capable of such brutality as Napoleon was too with some of his people).

In the meantime he is enjoying his last months of power and with his eldest son by his side :

Father & son, 1941 Do remember that he loves his son not the twin sister poor little Ashraf standing alone in the shade of her siblings ( she will have the strong will the brother never had). That was Macho and Cruel of Reza Shah but at least the brother loved his sisters and particularly Ashraf. I personally like Ashraf as a historical character in the drama that will soon unfold. I think she wrote a much better book Faces in a Mirror than her brother Answer to History ( written in haste and while he was dying) and even if it is biased from her point of view she wrote a book with alot of conviction and sincerity. Its a nice family story of love between a brother and a sister in the turmoils of history. (Regardless of the fact that she was probably not a democrat no more than most Iranians but at least she stood her front. And I admire her for that. ONLY THAT) and I think she is even happy with the bad reputation she earned as the Black Panther of the Family. After All she saved Iran from being invaded by Stalin didn't she ?. Even Mossadeghi's should acknowledge  her at least that quality if not her determining role in Operation AJAX .

BACK TO CHURCHILL, STALIN, and HITLER'S OPERATION BARBAROSSA ( AKA RED BEARD) 

OK After 1941 The Germans had decided to Attack Russia ( Operation Barbarossa) so here we are with the Russians and British wondering what to do ? No one is out there to help us not even America and his Democrat Isolationist President Roosevelt too occupied with the New Deal and make sure that the Americans are not deprived of hunger after the Great Depression of the 1920's. Let the Old Continent deal with their own obsolete governments and mindset. We are Modern and don't believe in Colonial wars anymore. We helped you guys in 1917 and put an end to all your troubles and redrafted new frontiers. Tough for you guys if you are not happy.

Churchill : What do we do with the Bloody Shah of Iran Joseph ?

Stalin: Lets get rid of him anyway we need Oil to fight the Germans on the Eastern Front.

ALLIES INVADE IRAN: August 25, 1941 

see pictory

Churchill : Yes but you know the Iranians kinda need a monarch  you know we British have had cordial relations with the Qajar shah before so lets not undermine their functional if not perfect system of government. Lets accept the young boy the Shah as new King, reza won't be a nuisance and all we have to do is send the father in exile. OK Joseph ?

Joseph: Well yes OK. ( Obviously he hadn't mentioned Azerbaijdan and communist friend Pishevari waiting for his time of glory ).

BUT No Hitler retaliates elsewhere since has other more grandiose Ambitions and give the Green light to his good ol ally JAPAN:

HEY AMERICA HERE UP YOUR ASS:

HERE COMES THE EMPIRE OF THE SUN: ( TORA, TORA, TORA)

PEARL HARBOR FLEET DESTROYED ENTIRELY BY JAPANESE FLEET:

 7 décembre 1941

AMERICA ENTERS WAR AGAINST JAPAN AND NAZI GERMANY AND FASCIST ITALY: Here We Go Again for A SECOND GLOBAL WAR...

Now the fun begins

Roosevelt: OK Guys Go in and Open the door and we will bring our Brother Joseph ( No more a Bloody Bolchevik) all the material and armemants he needs.

Roosevelt: OK boy Go in. We'll see what we can do with the new inexperienced young king who won't trouble us.

TEHRAN CONFERENCE: November 28 and December 1, 1943 in Tehran, Iran

BIG THREE MEET IN TEHRAN ( and Shah just shakes hands politely while feeling humiliated for seeing his country occupied and father in exile)

Roosevelt: We are doing good work in Iran and the people seem to like us ( letter from Pictory section) I feel at Home in Iran

US minister's wife in poor Tehran neighborhood (7 pix)

"Persian Coridor" supply route (32 pix)

Roosevelt Again: Hey Churchill, I feel kind of sorry for the young chap the shah, you know what you guys did with his father was kind of unfair after all the help his son has been giving us in this War. Lets have him on our side. You know buddy Joseph is kinda eary with his ambitions regarding Eastern Europe. We need a strong ally in the region who could trust us and vice versa.

Churchill: Your Right Ol' Chum; Let me have a word with him.

VICTORY AT LAST: WAR IS OVER

And Let Iran have its share of Joy and Lets Thank the Young Cooperative Shah HE IS AN ALLY:

IRANIAN MILITARY PARADES PROUDLY WITH ALLIES ON V-DAY IN LONDON:

 Iran in London WW II parade (2)

Iran in London WW II parade

there is much more to say you know Hiroshima and Nagazaki, Pishevary etc.  and how the Shah becomes the hero of Azarbaidjan ( with a little help from the British and the new American administration of President Truman ( Roosevelt just died in the arms of his mistress) but well lets take a big jump to Mossadegh after mentioning some realities regarding the American administrations that saw the Shah as the legitimate Ruler of Iran.

Truman-Esienhower-Nixon (all in different times develope strong friendly relations with the countries sovereign: The New Shah who is king since 1941) :

Hey we even loved Reza Shah, Not the British but we Americans did:

U.S. ambassador's wreath for Reza Shah

And we Respect your Majesty.

Shah: Newsweek cover, 49

Tehran: Eisenhower

DR. MOSSADEGH

see pictory

OK We all agree on the great contributions of this man who earned  his name as one of the "Great" Men of his country.

OK I give you the credit that he finally even got even with the Pahlavis ( and probably revenging his Qajar Siblings indirectly) by being named MAN OF THE YEAR 1951 for TIME MAGAZINE.

So he became a sudden celebrity. Cool ! He was Popular and was Outshining the Shah ( who was in Newsweek a year before) and never got the prestigious title of MAN OF THE YEAR.

Well sorry that does not make Mossadegh a Prophet no more than the Shah or another Man of the Year 1979 : KHOMEINY 

The Poor Shah got all the blame including from Kinzer and Co in ALL THE SHAH'S MEN

Very interesting book but well allow me to simply say that it looks at one side of the picture.

We have a young man put on the throne :

FIRSTLY: By Birth in a dynasty founded by his father.

SECONDLY: LEGALLY According to the existing Constitution of an occupied country that the allies accepted to acknowlegde despite their differences with his father.

THIRDLY AND NOT LASTLY: In Humiliating circumstances with the indulgeance of occupied forces and on the condition that he won't try to be a smart Ass like his father and all this amidst one of the BLOODIEST Conflicts the World had ever saw and the rise of new and dangerous ideologies that had taken root in the twentieth century: Communism ( one can defend it philisophically I suppose but certainly not STALINISM) the other being Nazism ( with everything it implied in moral and human destruction, the Holocaust which our Dear current President Ahmadinejad denies) and millions and millions of dead people worldwide including in the middle east and north africa ( moslem nations) and Lastly ... In a New World Order defined by TWO ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS: Hiroshima and Nagazaki announcing the COLD WAR.

Now in these conditions I think that any person in his shoes would feel not only humiliated but given the patriot he was ( and I think so was Mossadegh which the Shah in his memoires acknowledges as a patriot maybe half heartedly but he still does admit it) concerned by the turn of events and unpredictability of what could happen to his country in such a new turmoil.

YES MOSSADEGH WON OUR CASE IN LA HAGUE

YES MOSSADEGH WAS POPULAR DURING THIS CRISIS

But what were his chances on the long term. The Shah waited maybe even fatally to see Mossadegh make a false move and that was one to attack his legitimacy and sending the whole royal family: Ashraf being the first in the list to exile. Then he publically challenges the legitimate and constitutional sovereign of his country who has named him Prime Minister and then expects him not to feel some animosity towards the Old Qajar Prince turned democrat ?

Sure from a purely philisophical point of view I think democracy is a just system. May I remind you just that it was not invented by the French Revolution but in the Greek Citiy States ruled by Kings and sometimes Queens. The British Magna Carta and later on after Cromwell's Theocratic Republic that beheaded the King Charles Ist his death led to anarchy and Good Ol England became itself by restoring the son of the former Beheaded King in the person of Charles II. British Parliamentary System was established before the French Revolution and its reign of Terror only to be followed by an two successive Empires ...

As for the American Revolution ( Actually a colonial war by immigrants and pilgrims of the new world against the British Crown)  was actually won thanks to the help of the French King Louis XVI which we beheaded in France quite unjustly because he was not the so-called "tyrant" he was accused of being but because he was probably more unlucky than his predecessors in a century of new ideas and new aspirations.

 So I think we need to take some step back and look at both sides and psychological and strategic dilemma's imposed by History.

Mossadegh played the cards and partially won but lost on the long term.

The Shah played and won in 1953 but lost in 1979..

Khomeiny Played and lost in 1963 and won in 1979 

Of the three I still put the first two on an equal balance and certainly as "Great Men" in their own way driven by legitimate concerns and I believe rights but with a Tragic individual destiny. Maybe the Events of 1953 were a tragic milestone in our history not because of the Monarchy and its then Constitutionally legitimate Shah or of the Republican aspirations ( if any at the time ) that may have been driving Mossadegh (and his nationalistic feelings) but the fact that we as a people were not ready and that these two historical figures were stubbornly opposed in a diplomatic game imposed by historical circumstances on which neither actors had full control. Mossadegh would have been either toppled by a power hungry general or forced by circumstances to silence given his old age. Had he been younger, he would have looked as dashing as the young Shah then. Its unjust but that is how reel politics won over
noble and sincere patriotic concerns.

If things were to be different in tommorow's Iran and hopefully a Democratic Iran, Mossadegh's Statue could and should be erected in front of the Parliament just as Cromwell is in Great britain today ( despite his hatred of the monarchy) along with another great Patriot Shapour Bakhtiar who tried to concile the unconcilable and that the Shah also finally acknowledged ( too late) as the true patriot and civil servant he was.

As for Khomeiny I think History has judged his legacy already one of BLOOD, ASSASSINATIONS, AND HATRED !

Let the Shah be buried in his homeland with the respects of the last Persian Monarch he was and let the Royal Family in exile come back where they belong like all of us in exile that is : HOME

As for the people may they choose the best system of government that they desire and I believe deserve that is a democratic system that fully acknowledges Human Rights be it a Secular Democratic Republic or a Truly Constitutional Monarchy. And may the best win.

I signed your Petition for Amir Entezam.

Please do your duty and sign that of another Urgent Appeal that of Stopping Child Executions in Iran spearheaded by the beautiful and energetic Nazanin Afshin Jam and

lets all oppose Ahmadinejad's "Munichan' Dictate for he is NO MOSSADEGH !  

//iranian.com/main/node/38974

I hope others will do too 

Qorbaneh Shoma

VA ZENDEH BAD IRAN KEH HARGUEZ NAKHAHAD MORD

My Humble Opinion,

Dariush KADIVAR

Simple Free thinking citizen in exile

for Ali P.

Ali jaan,

1. Referendum is the highest form of democracy, whereby the people directly decide upon a major public policy, or constitutional amendments, and the like. In fact, one may ratify a constitution with a referendum, or revise it via referendum. Dr. Mossadegh using the referendum to abolish that particular parliament (and new elections to be held for a new parliament to be followed) is not anti-democratic; it is going directly to the people.

Some members of the JM such as Dr. Sanjabi then and consistently until his death argued that Dr. Mossadegh was wrong to do that.

The U.S. constitution allows the President to suspend the Congress when serious disputes occur.

One may agree with Dr. Mossadegh that it was good to do what he did, or agree with Dr. Sanjabi that it was bad policy what Dr. Mossadegh did.  But what Dr. Mossadegh did is democratic. No one was imprisoned, tortured, assassinated, executed, no paper was closed....  All Dr. Mossadegh did was at a time of emergency when the Shah, the Shia clerics were working with foreign spy agencies to overthrow the nationalist govt, so that they could instal a regime that would give our oil back to (a consortium of) foreign oil interests, institute dictatorship...

2. Your point is valid. In any democratic system there is need for checks and balances, short terms of office subject to periodic free and democratic elections. The referendum was NOT to abolish the institution of Majles and give the Prime Minister power for life. It was merely to abolish that particular Majles (I think it was either the 18th or 19th Majles).

JM was NOT afraid of free and democratic elections. In Tehran electoral district where the observers of various groups (the Shah’s, Tudeh, JM, etc) were present, JM won all the seats (I think it was 11 seats).

What Dr. Mossadegh was worried was that many deputies in the Majles were up for sale. And the British (and the U.S.) were bribing them to vote any which way the British told them to vote. According to the 1906 Constitution, the Shah could dismiss the PM after the Majles in a majority vote voted him out of office. Our 1906 Constitution was modeled after the British un-written constitution. Can the British monarch dismiss the PM????? Or dismissing and appointing of Prime Ministers is the job of the Parliament and the role of the monarch is merely to sign it (in Persian toshih).

If a monarch can dismiss and appoint Prime Ministers at will, then we do NOT have a constitutional monarchy, but rather an absolutist monarchy who could appoint his puppet to do as he or she wishes. Why then have elections for parliament if the monarch can appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers??

Dr. Mossadegh used the DIRECT democracy to get rid of the Majles in order to prevent the conspiracy by the Shah, MI6 (and as was proven later the CIA), to abolish our independence, lukewarm democracy and instead establish absolute dictatorship, and subservience to foreign powers.

3. Absolutely not. As I argued above according to our 1906 Constitution, which was mostly a translation of the Belgian Constitution, which itself was the written formulation of the British constitutional system, it was the role of the members of the lower house of Parliament to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minsters. But our Constitution was violated by Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar, Reza Shah Pahlavi, and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Dr. Mossadegh was trying to restore the 1906 Constitution and forcing the Shah to respect the constitution. But Mohammad Reza Shah was not a constitutional monarch; he was an absolutist dictatorial monarch. And that is why we are in the hellish nightmarish tyranny we are today.  If there was no coup in 1953, there would not be a revolution in 1979 with a blood-thirsty moron like Khomeini ruling our oppressed people.

The 1953 coup crushed our infant democracy. In the following years (1953-1978), the Shah targeted and successfully repressed the modern middle class opposition forces. The Shah did not take the reactionary clerical forces very seriously; Neither did anyone else (e.g., the left or the center). The Shah regarded the leftists and the democrats as his most serious enemies; So did everyone else.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,

MK

who you calling an airhead?

god bless him, just love how he did away with all those extra ministers and that worthless piece of paper known as the konstitution. the man was a visionary, doing pajama party tv segments waaaay before hugh hefner. khoda beya morzesh.

با برپایی

با برپایی جمهوری اسلامی، ملت ایران نه تنها مرتکب اشتباه خانمانسوز دفع فاسد به افسد شد

دفع فاسد?

?kodoom fesaad

?The same "fesaad" that the mollahs falsely propagated 30 years ago

?Are you repeating "mollah's" propaganda here

?Can you list in detail the "fesaad" of the previous regime

Please list only the type of fesaad that was above that found in France, UK, Japan, USA, Chile, India, Brazil, and all the other "civil" countries of the world

?Can you

?Well, CAN YOU

We were decieved once with these BS in the past.

How do you feel about repeating that same BS the mollahs taught us today? The same mollahs you oppose

And you call yourself a Mosadeghi? No wonder why his good name does not any longer draw as much attention as it should among neutral none-Mosadeghi people of Iran. Mosadegh got you Mosadeghis to thank for this

Mr Ali P.

I know that I am dispised by Mossadeghis and dismissed by the Monarchists but I give credit where credit is due. You hit the nail on its head. Dissolution of Parliament was the last nail in the coffin of Mossadegh movement. His "popular" action is indefensible by all accounts. Even his staunchest of allies, i.e. Dr Gholamhossein Sadighi is quotd to have warned him of the grave consequences of illegally dissolving the Majlis as, in the absence of a Parliament, the Shah would have absolute power to remove and appoint prime ministers. Mossadegh's answer to Sadighi was: He (the Shah) would never dare!

This is a clear evidence that Mossadegh had no arguement against the illegality of his action, he had only hoped that the Shah would not have the guts to remove him.

Well, the Shah had the guts and the Shah did remove Mossadegh: Legally!

Thanks for your brilliant mind and your contribution.

Botshekan

ps - You will never receive an answer form Hamid Akbari because there is no favorable answer to any of your questions.

A few questions regarding 28 Mordad

 "Operation of the law is not always popular, and what's popular is not always approved by the law".

                                                             -William Pryor 

  I have seen Dr. Hamidi speak before and I like and respect him very much. I wonder if he could answer the following questions that I have regarding the events of 28 Mordad, and the legality of the actions taken by the involved parties: 

1) Wasn't dissolving the Parliament, by a referendum uncustomary, illegal and unprecedented, popular or as unpopular as it may have been?

2) In every democratic system,including the Constitutional Monarchy, there is a check and balance apparatus. Anyone with any significant power, is watched by someone else in another branch of power, ready to impeach or replace them for any wrongdoing. In the absence of the parliament, who was supposed to watch the Prime Minister, as popular or unpopular as he may have been ?

3) In the absence of the Parliament, wasn't the Shah well within his customary constitutional power to dismiss and appoint Prime Ministers, as popular or unpopular as they may have been?

Thank You,

Ali P.