POLITICS

Laleh Khanoum,

Well said, and I, too, like Humility, have always enjoyed your articles. I may disagree with your conclusions, but I thoroughly respect your opinions, and more importantly, your right to express your opinions.

Unlike Mr./Mrs. "Bot Shekan," who cavalierly tosses about accusations (in the order of a closet Hezbollahi ala "Q") and would so dearly like to shut down this informative discussion, you on the other hand, are a student of knowledge and almost always fair and balanced. For that, you should be hugely commended.

May God bless all the independent-minded and freedom-loving people of Iran!

بزار شورش را در بیاوریم

جناب بت شکن، توافق و اتحاد بین ایرانیان باعث افتخار هر میهن پرست است.

من خودم را طرفدار دکتر مصدق به حساب نمیاورم. فقط شاگرد پارسایی و تقدس ایشان. اگرچه میدانم که در صحنه سیاست اشتباهاتی کردند، عشق بینهایت مصدق به مام میهن راه آینده ما را روشن میکند و درسی در میهن پرستی به ما میدهد.

از حضور شما سپاسگزارم.

نخیر طرفین دست بردار نیستند

خب مثل اینکه بالاخره توافق بین دو قطب اصلی‌ این بحث سرنوشت ساز داره به یه جایی‌ میرسه.خدا رو شکر که اگه شاه و مصدق به توافق نرسیدند حد اقل طرفداران جانفشانشون ۵۶ سال بعد دارن به توافق میرسن. فقط خواهش می‌کنم دیگه شورشو در نیارین. تا همین جا دیگه بسه 

The Pleasure Has Been Mine

Humility wrote: “P.S. I would also like to thank Laleh for writing this aricle to make these discussions possible in the first place! Looking forward to your next article…”

I find your contributions priceless and have learned much from you, Ramin Parsa, Fred, and other contributors. Please be generous again and honor me with your presence in future threads.

Islam Has Been Our Curse!

Ramin Parsa wrote: “Every time a modernizing leader tried to change the status quo in Iran, the Ulama resisted and made trouble -- significant trouble (and the foreign powers used this homegrown treachery for their own gain).”

I couldn’t agree more. Summing up the history of our nation since the Muslim conquest of Persia, I don’t hesitate for a moment to conclude that Islam has been the main cause of our failure to regain our rightful place amongst civilized and advanced nations.

For 1400 years, the offspring of Arab invaders have integrated themselves into our society and culture and have hijacked our minds.

The process of establishing democracy in Iran includes many facets and is a multi dimensional undertaking. Freeing our minds from the teachings of Islam remains to be at the core of this undertaking. Luckily, this process is already underway…

I thought you were going to wind it down

Ramin Parsa (aka Noush Arzu and a few others) and Humility (aka R2D2 and a few others)

Please respct the author of the blog and stop this purely personal and non-informative exchange of your hugely flawed understanding of the Iranian history and its ramifications. The Lady is tired fellows and has had enough!

Go worship your heros elsewhere.

Humility

I appreciate that, very much, specially the part where you generously acknowledge my deep love for my homeland, the wonderful land of Iran. You write: "Again, I would like to thank you for participating in this exchange - There is no question in my mind that your love of Iran is no less than mine in seeing the once true greatness that we cherished in our history past, to come back!"

I also am certain that you speak from a genuine point of view, and am delighted by your balanced tone and respect for other people's opinions. We need more of that in a future free and democratic Iran.

Well done!

As far as Mossadegh's legion of supporters in present-day Iran, I would merely say that it's expected and understandable. He championed the massive frustrations of millions of Iranians in their struggle for independence. I have never doubted his heart, nor his motives, only his tactics.

As you write, "Your point is well taken regarding the issues of Realpolitik, and the fact that Mossadegh could have potentially played along."

Politics is not football, it's more like chess. I just think his fiercely proud personality and personal experiences (as a Qajar prince he experienced the humiliation of foreign ingterventions first-hand on numerous occasions) were ill-suited for the position of prime minister in a very challenging and turbulent period in our history. A cooler, more balanced, level-headed personality would have been far more suited throughout the nationalization period (1951-1953), in my opinion.

Best wishes and thank you again for your positive statements -- and you're absolutely right, the land of Kurosh deserves so much better! May we all be alive to witness its true potential come to fruition as it did under the reign of Kurosh and Dariush.

To: ramin parsa

I do appreciate your somewhat exhaustive efforts in clarifying things.

However, there is one issue that you have not properly addressed, and that is the aspirations of nations such as Iran to be independent of undue foreign influence.

Please let me elaborate on this: The very national interests of foreign powers would ultimately dictate, either directly, or indirectly, the role of a subservient status to nations such as our own. By that I mean, that when push comes to shove, the national interests of the imposing nations, such as U.S. and Britain, will ultimately prevail against our own national (Iranian) interests!

To be specific, the idea of independence is a wonderful thing! For a nation such as ours, with a rich history and culture, going back to the times of Kourosh and Dariush, to play the role of a subservient subject, is not exactly what we as a people really would like to aspire to!

Your point is well taken regarding the issues of Realpolitik, and the fact that Mossadegh could have potentially played along. However, with the personality that he had, and the pride that he harbored within his bosom regarding his beloved nation Iran, that was not a possibility!

All in all, you present a fair assessment of the facts that are involved. Nevertheless, the greatest shortcoming of your argument is the transcendental implications of what Mossadegh was trying to instill, and achieve for our beloved Iran!

Let me clarify this for you: If you travel to Iran today, within all demonstrations, whether in Tehran, or in other parts, you would see a large and significant picture of Mossadegh carried by a great many people .. Both young and old! Although he was unsuccessful in securing the very independence that he so greatly desired, nevertheless, his patriotism and self-sacrifice has generated a huge inspiration within the hearts and minds of all Iranians - Young and Old, Men And Women!

Again, I would like to thank you for participating in this exchange - There is no question in my mind that your love of Iran is no less than mine in seeing the once true greatness that we cherished in our history past, to come back!

Respectfully,

Humility

P.S. I would also like to thank Laleh for writing this aricle to make these discussions possible in the first place! Looking forward to your next article :)

Humility

Please don't fudge the facts just to squeeze a little sympathy for Mossadegh and his struggles against the British. 

You write: "Please allow me to further develop this subject with you: I have not yet seen any satisfactory documentation indicating that the British were willing to re-negotiate with the Iranian Government and Dr. Mossadegh in Good Faith regarding the previously signed agreements." 

The fact is that Mossadegh imprudently cornered himself in the "nationalization" box, from which he could not retreat. Just like Obama today has characterized his entire presidendy on the health care bill, all his own doing by the way, from which he cannot retreat no matter how many people tell him that it costs way too much money, and that in these difficult enonomic times, it really makes no sense.

The truth is that when the nationalization genie was let out of the bottle, it was not going back in. When Razmara announced that Iran should accept the 50/50 deal that the BRITISH HAD FINALLY OFFERED, a member of Fedayoun-e-Islam assasinated him. At that time, the Fedayoun was loosely affiliated with Mossadegh's Jebh-e-Meli, through Ayatollah Kashani.

What perhaps you don't realize is that the coup plans were in fact started at the end of the Truman administration (November 1952), when even Truman realized that he could not deal with Mossadegh. The original struggle against the British in 1950-1951 was to procure the same 50/50 deal for Iran that the Americans had given Saudi Arabia. The British didn't want to follow the path of the Americans vis-a-vis the Saudis, so Mossadegh summarily barked up the nationalization tree and kicked the British out of Iran, basically digging his own grave.

The fact is, had Mossadegh been a savvy politician he would've used the Americans (who had given the Arabs a 50/50 deal) to secure a similar deal for Iran -- after all, that was the original goal, a 50/50 deal, not nationalization. Originally, as per the Knox D'arcy agreement in 1908, Iran was getting only 24% of every one dollar of profit -- 76% going to the British. Reza Shah struggled to raise Iran's interest to 33%.

And in 1950-1951, the goal was a 50/50 deal, and this would've been ultimately possible through negotiations (which, in fact, did happen), except Mossadegh, who became a prime minister for the first time at the age of 73, was nowhere near as politically gifted as his own counsin, Ahmad Ghavam, who for certain would've sought a political solution instead of a dog fight. In fact, that's exactly what Ahmadinejad is inviting today, a dog fight with rather scary repercussions, instead of prudent negotiations. 

In the end, the weak, frail leader of a weak, backward nation decided to go toe-to-toe with a couple of angry bulldogs and they fatally bit him and ultimately set the scene in Iran for the 1979 revolution. You and Laleh and countless others on the left who almost always blame everything wrong in the world on "imperial" powers (read: USA) think that it was mighty courageous and patriotic of Mossadegh, as the leader of a third-world country with a third-world economy, to challenge a superior enemy (x2) without any superior allies, I think it's extremely reckless and patently foolish.

Let's just leave it at that.

Laleh

Just consider the 1963 uprising by mullah Khomeini, in response to land reform and women's rights. Just consider Ayatollah Kashani's betrayal of Mossadegh in 1953. Just consider Akhund Nouri's successful efforts in sabotaging the secular spirit of the Constitutional Revolution in 1907. Just consider the treachery of mullah Mudaress, who fiercely resisted Reza Shah's attempts at creating a democratic republic in 1925, with Reza Khan as its first "president" (the mullahs much prefer a monarchy where they can manipulate the political process much easier, in that it's far easier to put pressure on ONE man, a king, as opposed to 437 senators and congressman (ala USA), where power is dispersed).

This is a mere sample compliation (for there's much more) of a 100 years of treachery by the Ulama (1907-2009), and yet, you choose to blame our political retardation on "imperial" powers, capsulated in one event, 28 Mordad coup.

Every time a modernizing leader tried to change the status quo in Iran, the Ulama resisted and made trouble -- significant trouble (and the foreign powers used this homegrown treachery for their own gain). You and many on the left always try to crucify the "imperial" powers for our lack of political and social evolution, and I think that's patently laughable, specially when you consider the abundance of evidence proving that our own religious zealots have been at the very front lines of this monumental struggle, trying so very had (and so very successfully) to deliberately retard our natural and inevitable growth. 

And the political, social retardation by the IRI (the Ulama) continues to this very day! And it will continue in perpetuity so long as the Ulama's staying power depends on the retrardation and stagnation of Iranian society. In this respect, the Shah, much like the Qajars, could've accepted the decaying status quo and rested in his palaces and kissed the back of the akhunds' hands and his son would be king today. But the Shah and his father wanted to modernize Iran (womens rights, secular education, industry, etc.), and therefore, marginalize the power of the Ulama.  As such, in many meaningful ways, the real revolution happened under the rule of the Pahlavis, and the 1979 takeover by the Ulama was a counter-revolution.

So I say let's look into the mirror for once and blame ourselves for our shabby station in life, instead of accusing the foreign boogey-man. Sure they share a degree of culpability for fanning the flames of our achilles heel, but our achilles heel, i.e., the shiite establishment, is entirely our own doing!

Laleh Khanoum

enjoyed this blog very much! Thanks

-F 

Humility and Laleh

Humility, my answer to you is coming...

Laleh writes, "The similarities between Iran and the young American colonies are tremendous. However, the latter rises up to be a superpower while the former is still struggling for basic human rights."

This is perhaps the most asinine, ludicrous, ridiculous, bull-crap sort of analysis in the history of Iranian.com -- and that's saying a TON!!!

There is absolutely NO comparison between Iran and the founding of America, and even if there were, you cannot compare the evolutionary process of Christianity in a SECULAR society (America) with the ass-backwards Shiite country like Iran. There is no tradition of democracy and secularism in Iran, even your beloved Mossadegh behaved undemocratically while he was in power, closing down the Majlis and acting as a dictator.

But forget Mossadegh here, are you seriously comparing the Iranian Ulama and their tradition and heritage of treachery to the Salem witch trials in America? In America you have the freaking US CONSTITUTION!!! Whatever may have happened in Jamestown or Salem was part of the evolutionary process of the American democracy, finding its true identity. We also had the horrible Dredscot case, which made slavery legal. America has evolved as a secular nation, because it was founded on democratic principles and it had a genuine document that laid out the rule of law, a secular system of laws.

If you really want to cure the disease that ails our society, you perhaps have to go back to the Arab invasion, not the American/British coup in 1953! Are you seriously kidding me??? In Iran, even the document that we achieved in the Constitutional Revolution of 1907 was molested by the Ulama, namely, by one Akhund Nouri.

In his entirely self-serving interferences, he was able to incorporate a clause that required all laws in Iran to pass Islamic muster (read: sharia test). Even though he was ultimately hanged for his treachery, he managed to secure a "guiding" or supervisory role for the Ulama in the post-1907 modern Iran.

But you can go ahead and blame the "imperial" powers, go ahead and continue this asinine practice of blaming the US and the UK for everything wrong in our society. The truth is, none of these great powers could abuse and molest us if we were not plagued with the cancer of the shiite hierchical establishement. Like I said, EVERY single time we've had a modernizing leader come onto the scene in Iran, the mullahs have conspired (with foreigners) to destroy that person -- Reza Shah, Mossadegh, and the late Shah.

Lastly, Iran has a bevy of social ills, and these social ills are the true root of our problems today, and none of these social ills is the fault of the US or the UK. For example, why are women, to this very day, treated like second class citizens in Iran? Half of our population is dismissed as irrelevant, where it really matters.

Is this the fault of American "imperial" power? Hardly. The main culprit are the forces manipulating the religion itself -- the reactionary forces that dominate the shiite establishement. The Ulama has for the last 500 years deliberately stunted and retarded our political and social evolution, purely for their own parasitic self-interest.

It's really as simple as that.

Our lack of political and social evolvement, ala the USA, is the fault of our religious leaders, first and foremost. They are the cause of the perpetual fire that has snuffed out our social progess and political development and the "imperial" powers have merely fanned those flames for their own self interest, but the fire is singularly our problem, our doing, our shortcoming, OUR CURSE -- a homegrown social disease born within the reactionary tradition of shiite Islam.

Before you go ...

The only lesson I learned form the exchanges between you and Nousha (did I say Nousha? sorry I meant Ramin - they are so alike in their opinion, style and even avatar) was that there is a group of second or third generation ex pat Iranians who, having been raised and educated in the US, see everything from an American angle and are totally out of touch with the realities of their parental homeland and its own recent history. In their need to reassert themselves, they feel they needs to debate their contemporary history with each other. Sometimes, as is the case on this blog and a few others, they evan debate it with their own selves (using different identities - R2D2 knows what I am talking about). You are both still enslaved to your own culture of hero worship. In may ways you are the same: buit a world around yourselves and within the walls of this world have redefined yourself and your past and present). Nothing to do with the world as it was or is.

Thanks for the lesson.

As We Wind Down…

It has been a pleasure to visit with all of you on this thread. I appreciate your contributions and continue to learn from your perspectives. We shall meet again!

Iran & American Colonies

Ramin Parsa wrote: “How can you compare America with Iran -- it's a patently ridiculous comparison! Our country is a schitzophrenic country with a Persian body and a Shiite face. Our heros are Arab imams and Persian poets. American heros are the Rockefellers, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln. This is a secular society, ours is a backward, superstitious shiite society..."

On the surface, the differences between our country and America seem colossal and in some ways, these distinctions are very important. However, I would like to direct your attention to a few facts:

First, at the time when the young colonies in America were dreaming of independence from the Great Britain, their national heroes were not born and shaped the way they are today. America’s Founding Fathers were only emerging into the scene to define the path of their nation.

Second, the American society was very much plagued by the presence of the Christian right, a group of fanatics that had escaped Europe to build their Jerusalem in the New World. The Salem Witch Trials conducted by the Puritans were much more than the act of killing witches.

These persecutions were symbols of ignorance egged by religious leaders. These religious forces kept the memories of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition alive in the consciousness of Jefferson and Adams. America’s Founding Fathers were petrified of religious meddling in politics and took every step necessary to protect the young nation from them.

The similarities between Iran and the young American colonies are tremendous. However, the latter rises up to be a superpower while the former is still struggling for basic human rights.

The biggest difference that distinguishes their fate from us is the foresight, devotion, and patriotism of their founding fathers.

اینا واسه فاطی تنبون نمیشه

پس این طور

یعنی مصدق به خودی خود استعداد اسطوره شدن نداشت و فقط فساد دربار بود که ایشان را اسطوره کرد. الحق و ال انصاف که نیک پنداری. جواب شما را مصدقیون خواهند داد.

Here we go; again!

نقش تاریخی‌ مصدق در گرو تحلیلهای موافق و مخالف نیست. این فساد
حاکم بر دربار پهلوی بود که به اسطوره شدن مصدق پس از کودتا کمک کرد. شاه
اگر لیاقت داشت، حتی بعد از کودتا هم، میتوانست بقول معروف اوضاع را جمع و
جور کند؛ منتها وی به درد بیدرمان خود بزرگ بینی‌ دچار شد تا جایی که در
سالهای آخر سلطنتش برای "غرب" هم دستورالعمل صادر میکرد که یکی‌ از
معروفترین‌هایش را در مصاحبه‌های مطبوعاتی آن‌ زمانش  میشود پیدا کرد که
صحبت از "شما چشم آبی‌‌ها و ما چشم سیاه ها" میکرد.

تفاوت‌ها و همانندیهای "گاندی" و "مصدق"، اگر مصداقی داشته باشد، ربطی‌ به تعداد جماع روزانه ندارد!!

قیاس مع الفارق

کارخانه بت سازی از مصدق آن قدر به ورشکستگی افتاده که حالا دیگر او را به گاندی تشبیه میکنند؟  اولا این خانم گیلانی نه مصدق را درست می‌‌شناسد و نه گاندی را. گاندی رهبر معنوی ملت هند بود و هیچ دخالتی در سیاست نداشت در حالیکه مصدق رئیس قوه مجریه و یک رهبر کاملا سیاسی بود. دویما گاندی به عنوان یک شخصیت عرفانی و معنوی به گونه ایی عیسا وار از تمام تعلقات مادی،  نظیر گوشتخاری، همبستری با زن خود (در نیمه آخر زندگی‌) و مالکیت چشم پوشیده بود. بر عکس ایشان جناب مصدق از تمامی این مواهب بهره مند بود. و سوماً در اغلب تظاهرات خیابانی جبهه ملی‌ بر علیه حزب توده (تا قبل از انشعاب با کاشانی)با زدو خورد با توده یها پرداخته و از خدمات افرادی نظیر شعبان جعفری و طیب برخوردار می‌شدند و خمی هم به ابروی مبارک جناب مصدق نمی آمد. مصدق همان ژنرال زاهدی فاشیست و نازی پرست را در نخستین کابینه خود داشت و هیچ مانعی هم نبود. پس مصدق مخالفتی با اعمال زور نداشت الا وقتی که بر علیه خودش بود.

Actually I wish I was a USNAVY SEAL

However with me being over the age 50 that cannot happen

 I do apologize if I overtaxed your intellectual capacity Major....

but I guess the metaphor went wayyy over your head...  

Short Sighted Sargord

You want every Iranian to share in the pride. What pride? Iranians being pride of the government that treat them as unequal? That re-write its history and identity?

You may be proud of Iran picking a fight with the rest of the world, but does it benefit Iran, or is it a fight for the sake of having a fight, or does it benefit a dictating government.

Open your eyes Sargord, only the day that you can see every Iranian as equal citizen who can take share in forming the future of the country, without any dominant ideology, you can dream a nation pride of its success.

It was not about Mosadegh

Thank you Laleh for this good article. The article started with Mosadegh and 1953 and ended with a conclusion relevant to the present challenges that Iran faces. It seems like stuck-in-the-past anti and pro Mosadegh lost the whole point and started analysing saneness of Mosadegh's mind and outcomes of his policies.I agree with you that military attacks, sanctions and isolating Iran will be counterproductive. But I also believe that we need help from others to free ourselves and shape the future Iran.Most importantly if we were to learn one lesson from the last two efforts by Iranians, it is the importance of education and independent wisdom of every Iranian.

p.s. I am not very good with history, but did Mosadegh enjoy the same solidarity form his people that Ghandi received from his?

To: ramin parsa

I have read your commentary below regarding the events leading to the 1953 coup in Iran, and also your evaluation and analysis of Dr. Mossadegh's role as the Prime Minster of Iran at the time.

Please allow me to share with you a couple of thoughts that may potentially assist you in the better understanding of the situation at the time: First, you have to realize that right after the end of the Second World War, there were a great number of countries throughout the Thirld World, from Africa to Asia and elsewere, that attempted to free themselves from the shackles of colonialism and servitude from the likes of the British empire.

Of course, India was perhaps the most prominent one. The very nature of Mahatma Gandhi, and the non-violence that he seriously advocated, made him a very special and exceptional case.

Regarding the fact that the British were totally bankrupt after the Second World War, that was a complete and proven fact. As you may be aware, one of the very few things that the British Government could rely on was the proceeds from the Anglo-Iranian (Persian) arrangement that it had with reference to the Oil from Iran.

Having said all of that, I believe, that in my humble opinion, your portrayal of the activities and the role that Dr. Mossadegh played in his great desire for freeing us of the shackles of colonialism and exploitation by the British, is at best unfair, and at worst cavalier and ridiculous.

Please allow me to further develop this subject with you: I have not yet seen any satisfactory documentation indicating that the British were willing to re-negotiate with the Iranian Government and Dr. Mossadegh in Good Faith regarding the previously signed agreements. As you know, the previously signed agreements, essentially allocated to the Iranian People the Crumbs of the natural blessings of a resource such as our own Oil.

Furthermore, your observation is correct that had the British yielded to the Mossadegh Government, that the domino effect may have taken place with other Oil rich countries that the West was exploiting. However, resisting to such exploitation, is a natural right of any nation!

I woud like to say something categorically, unequivocally, and without reservation here: Your conclusion, looking through the lens of hindsight of 50 years, and judging Dr. Mossadegh's actions, decisions, and patriotism,  and concluding that he acted in a stupid way, is patently unfair, grossly immature, and regrefully self-serving!

As I have indicated, the British were not willing to negotiate in good faith with the Mossadegh Government. To fault him for taking the stand that he took, is just plainly baseless!

Now, to move on from this issue, your observation that the influence of Religion be totally and completely removed from the Government, is absolutely correct. I personally believe that the best form of government for Iran at this time is a Secular Democracy. Please take the time to read some of my previous blogs, and you'll see my intent on that.

I would like to kindly ask you to re-consider some of your positions outlined below. It's one thing to pass a judgment on someone with the activities surrounding him/her at the time; it's something totally different when it's done through a lens of hindsight of 50 years!

Respectfully,

Humility

P.S. I have enjoyed this exchange very much. I hope that we can find a common ground here. If you have any questions, I would gladly respond to them!

Ali's wish to be a fly

Why a fly on the wall? I would think a guy like you would be at the forefront. No? Oh well, probably just as well for your sake. 

It isn't what's to take back, Ali. It's really about what you took away. And that's what makes up a true sense of denial.

Curious, did you even vote in the June election? If you did, great. But if you didn't, what stake do you have in what's going on in the meehan? 

Still in Denial are you not Saragord???

I wish I could be a fly on the wall to see the LOOK OF ASTONISHMENT that you and the other IRI members will have on their faces when the PEOPLE OF IRAN take back their country....

POWER TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAN!!!! 

the past 30 years of independence

Might have been weak back then, but the IRI's been successfully standing its ground since 1980. And there has been many an imperial challenge in those 30 years, which have not lessened up to this very day. In fact, they've recently intensified.

Yet the Iranian nation remains steadfastly independent. 

Really wish many of you could share in the pride. Alas, too much hate and way too much baggage.  

bencross and Laleh

bencross, I will consider it, but really, I have absolutely no patience for ideological zealots, some of whom would STILL rather have the raping IRI in power instead of Reza Pahlavi (because of their abjectly irrational hatred for the Shah). Not that I think Reza is the greatest thing since slice bread, but he DEFINITELY is a HUGE improvement to the vermin running Iran right now.

Laleh, please continue playing games, or rather, keep your head in the sand and engage in frivolous discussions about a "frail and courageous" 73-year-old prime minister doing this or that. What you call "courageous" I call patently reckless, irrational and dangerous.

Laleh writes: "Once and only once, when a frail prime minister had the courage to reclaim what is legally and morally ours, the imperial powers together with homegrown traders brought him down."

As I wrote below, "the UK and the US were NOT going to allow Iran to nationalize its oil fields in 1953, no way, no how! -- and Mossadegh irrationally played with fire when he squeezed, and ultimately, forced England's greedy hand. As such, the coup that ultimately ousted Mossadegh from power, was, if rationally considered, a very foreseeable tragedy, in large part due to Mossadegh's own political incompetence, not patriotism."

Or courage, for that matter. And believe me, the difference between having oil and not having oil is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!! You didn't see America invading Rwanda in 1994, did you? But you did see them rolling their tanks into Baghdad in 2003, did you not?

That should tell you how HUGE the difference is (between having oil and not having it). Having oil invites trouble, the way you would invite trouble if you park a fancy Rolls Royce in front of your projects in the Bronx.

My whole point is that when you're PATENTLY WEAK (as Iran was in 1951, in EVERY way), you have absolutely no right to play hardball and challenge the 2 biggest bullies in your backyard. You have absolutely no rational standing to display "courage." You have to be smart and wiley and use your political savvy to find a political solution, period. The flip side of your "courage" coin is recklessness, Laleh, or if I may be so blunt, stupidity.

The coup in 1953 had nothing to do with the Shah! Even the Shah was ultimately removed when he got "too big for his boots," which was the way the British Ambassador in Iran described the situation in 1975. In fact, Reza Shah was removed by the very same powers. And in every instance, it was for the sake of oil, and very little else.

Laleh further writes: "The national resources of America didn’t become this nation’s curse. Why? Because of the devotion, foresight, and patriotism of America’s Founding Fathers."

Are you kidding me?  Laleh, what you fail to recognize, perhaps deliberately as you've probably built a glowing shrine to Mossadegh in your mind, is that you can't compare a very young country like America, and its founding fathers, with the massively complex situation we have in Iran. Firstly, America has not been cursed with the reactionary forces of the Ulama. In America, religious figures have been mostly castigated to the sidelines of the political scene.  In Iran, it is the opposite. Every time a modernizing leader has come to fore in Iran, the mullahs have joined forces with foreigners to destroy that person, starting with Amir Kabir, to Reza Shah, Mossadegh, to the late Shah.

How can you compare America with Iran -- it's a patently ridiculous comparison! Our country is a schitzophrenic country with a Persian body and a Shiite face. Our heros are Arab imams and Persian poets. American heros are the Rockefellers, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln. This is a secular society, ours is a backward, superstitious shiite society (until very recently anyway).

The mullahs/ayatollahs have tried soooooooo hard over the years to keep us backward and in the dark so as to keep their righteous holy "dokan" open for business. Enlightened people do not follow the musings of a mullah. There are many forces to blame, but most of all, we have to blame ourselves the most. 

Ramin Parsa

Thanks for the suggestion about the blog, but discussing the 1953 coup (YET AGAIN) is counter-productive and a huge waste of time, specially when the IRI is teetering on the edge of destruction. I have no idea why so many of these so-called nationalistic Iranians constantly lampoon about Mossadegh and his demise, when it's really NOT the battle we should be fighting at this time.

I agree with Vildemose. You should put together your take on Masadegh in a blog to be available for further discussions. And I don't agree that it is not our today issue. I wish it wasn't but it is. As you may have noticed not everybody has the same conclusion -give or take- as you do about that period. This fact makes it a current issue. Don't underestimate the terrible affect that all those frantic pro Massadegh propaganda had on our political culture to this date.

Also, I believe that true Mossadegh supporters have a legitimate need to come to a term with his legacy. This issue has always been hijacked by communists (and ex) who made a business of theirs to re-write the history while attracting the nationalist feelings of Iranisan toward their own 'dokkaan'.

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbure...

Dear Laleh Gillani, I had no time to work on your request but I see that Ramin has expressed the bulk of it. I however, wanted to focus on dysfunctional political culture that we inherited from him. If I managed to work on it, I post it.

A Curse or a Blessing?

Ramin Parsa wrote: “The answer is very simple… and indeed, it could set us free. One word: OIL. We have it, and India doesn’t. It’s as simple as that!”

I don’t deny the importance of this difference. However, the answer isn’t as simple as that!

The national resources of America didn’t become this nation’s curse. Why? Because of the devotion, foresight, and patriotism of America’s Founding Fathers.

A valuable national resource such as oil could have become our blessing. Instead, it has become our curse. Why?

Because our corrupt leaders and rulers have used it as a bargaining chip to advance their own wealth and expand their own powers. All of these politicians have been weak and lacked the moral certitude to distinguish between right and wrong and to choose between their duties to our nation and their drive for self-preservation.

Once and only once, when a frail prime minister had the courage to reclaim what is legally and morally ours, the imperial powers together with homegrown traders brought him down.

A weak Iran, a dependent Iran, an occupied Iran… This Iran serves the interests of the foreign powers, and they will keep us weak and dependent as long as we allow them.

Dr. Mossadegh didn’t sacrifice Iran for his own good name; he forfeited all he had and all he could have had only for Iran…

And Vildemose

Thanks for the suggestion about the blog, but discussing the 1953 coup (YET AGAIN) is counter-productive and a huge waste of time, specially when the IRI is teetering on the edge of destruction. I have no idea why so many of these so-called nationalistic Iranians constantly lampoon about Mossadegh and his demise, when it's really NOT the battle we should be fighting at this time.

It's truly nauseating to read yet another blog about what a wonderfull leader Mossadegh was -- it's ridiculous! The mullahs are raping our motherland (and our brothers and sisters in prisons all over Iran) AS WE SPEAK, and yet, there are people on this site who constantly bring up 60 years ago and pick at the Shah's bones!

It's categorically pathetic!

Let's move on, for Chrissakes! Get over it! The man (the Shah) paid rather dearly for his mistakes! However, the mullahs have raped Iran and its resources far more than any king in the last 1,000 years!

Let's unite and destroy our CURRENT enemy! Let's exhaust our efforts in a positive fashion so that we can get our country back and rid ourselves of the cancer of Islamic fascism.  This whole Mossadegh revisionism is just plain asinine, not to mention a MONUMENTAL waste of time, which we should be spending in the pursuit of coming up with creative ideas in overthrowing our present-day enemy... the IRI.