Misc

One more thing...

This is how Andrew Young, Carter's US Ambassador to the UN, described Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978, long before the revolution succeeded: "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint."

And this is the New York Times characterization of Khomeini, a tolerant leader whose “entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals.” The editorials went on to say Khomeini would provide “a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country." 

William Sulivan, Carter’s ambassador to Iran, said, “Khomeini is a Ghandi-like figure.”  

Carter adviser James Bill, the author of the very baised "Lion and he Eagle," said that Khomeini is not a "mad mujahid," but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”

A man of impeccable integrity and honesty? Mullah Khomeini? "Humane?" A "Ghandi-like" figure? A "saint?" "Moderate?" "Progressive?"

What a bunch of biased bullshit!  And you actually think Carter merely "abandoned" the Shah?

Lastly,

Just think -- why is it that once the Shah was gone, the Western powers and their biased media outlets almost completely forgot about human rights violations in Iran, as if it ceased to exist once Khomeini took power? As Iranians, we know better. They clubbed the Shah with the club of human rights in order to destabalize his regime and once they got the Devil they wanted, they brushed aside the massive new waves of human rights violations under their Persian rugs.

Conspiracies clearly do exist, even today, but why do some of us feel the compunction to deny their existence, let alone their effectiveness? This is not to say that we Iranians don't have a "dayee jaan Napelone" complex, we clearly do -- but in fact, we have such a famously admitted psychological weakness precisely because of some VERY REAL episodes of western advernturism in our country for at least 200 years, specially by Russia and England, brought about almost always because of our sensitive geographic proximity to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf.

Just consider how the Russians and the British sabotaged the Constitutional Revolution in 1906. At first, England supported our dreams of democracy against Russia's arrogant objections, and then both powers conspired to practically kill the movement and many of its participants. Of course, the Ulama, in the name of one odious character, Akhund Nouri, succeeded in winning a key supervisory role for the mullahs in modern-day Iran (and its Constitutional Monarchy) vis-a-vis civil laws in post-1907 Iran.

Akhund Nouri set a dangerous precedence for democracy in Iran, in that in Nouri's reactionary footsteps followed Mullah Mudaress and his sabotage of republican democracy in 1925, to Ayatollah Kashani and his sabotage of democracy in 1953, to Ayatollah Khomeini and his sabotage of Bakhtiar's liberal democracy in 1979, as per the IRI.

In each one of these hotly contested episodes in Iran, even a little foreign assistance for this group or the other has made a huge difference in terms of victory and defeat. 

"Princess"

I was pretty damn civil, you just seem incapable of handeling a little heat and a little shock to your preconceived, and all too childlike notions, and as they say, if you can't handle the fire, please step out of the kitchen.

Actually, I'm starting to know why you love Obama, who, also has a very thin skin, as he constantly lampoons against Fox News for the not so favorable media coverage. Imagine GW Bush complaining ad naseum about the media coverage! At least he had an adult perspective about the nature of the position and the scrutiny it inivites, often unfairly.

Suggestion to you and your loved one... grow some skin.

And the reason for my "bala paeen paridam" over your simplistic outlook is because it is ASTOUNDING and SHOCKING to me that after 30 years, some of us are still beholden to such fairy tales, as if the admitted conspiracies in 1953 (Iran), and even the 2003 Iraq invasion have not taught us enough about the role of sinister outside forces and other alledged, and much poo-pooed conspiracies... in 1954 (Guatamala), 1960-1962 (Cuba), 1963 (JFK), 1966 (Indonesia), 1967 (Greece), 1968 (RFK, MLK), 1973 (Chilie), 1979 (Iran), 1985 (Nicaragua, ala Iran/Contra) and many others, including Saddam Hussein's rise to power in Iraq, which experienced its own share of coups and upheavels leading to the ascendancy of the Baath Party.

Yes, you're right, in all the above-named coups and revolutions only the indigenous people were involved. Foreigners played absolutely no role, or at best a peripheral role!

Again, I have this beautifdul little bridge in Brooklyn I'm looking to sell ASAP. You seem the perfect candidate.

Interested?

bencross, keep your head in the sand...

It was not just a simple case of nonfeasance by the West, in "abandoning" the Shah, but rather, a very active case of "malfeasance." 

Huyser's mission was a very ACTIVE and deliberate plan to destabalize the monarchy. As was the funneling of over $150 million dollars to Khomeini in Paris in 1978 (to distribute his propaganda tapes), by the CIA. Not to mention the very active and incindiary role of the British Broadcasting Corporation in ultimately handing "Ayatollah BBC" the victory in the 1979 uprising.

It was not just a matter of "abandonment" of the Shah, -- if it was just that, we would have in all likelihood ended up with the Bakhtiar government in 1979. But what the West desired in Iran, which is perhaps the most strategic nation in the world, at the height of the Cold War was not a liberal democracy, ala Bakhtaiar, but rather, something far more extreme, ala Khomeini, and they actively pushed for this outcome -- for they wanted to wrap Central Asia in the "green belt" of Islam, so as to forestall any Soviet takeover.

This "Islamification of Central Asia" was very real -- in fact, it was the grand theory of a Princeton professor, the British-born Bernard Lewis, a celebrated neocon Jew, who was also a very key architect in the 2003 Iraq invasion.

And Carter's National Security Advisor, Mr. Zbignew Brzezinksy, who, as a Polish immigrant, hated the Soviets with a deep passion, very much bought into this theory. 

As such, you add the fuel of the "green belt" theory to the vitriol voiced by the representatives of the Western oil industry (Rumsfeld, Cheney and others) hoping to punish the Shah, and you have a very combustible situation for the monarchy. 

Add to all this... a failing economy in 1977, exascerbatred by falling oil prices (thanks to the Saudis output of 11 million barrels a day as per White House orders) and the non-stop Western media attacks against the monarchy, and the Shah's own failings, health and otherwise, and you can see a formula for sparks to fly. 

In the 1979 Islamic revolution, the West played a far more sinister role than mere "abandonment" of the Shah, which would NOT have given us an Islamic Republic, ala the IRI. Indeed, starting from the "green belt" theory to the abject greed and avarice of the oil industry, all the objective facts point to a very real and active role played by the Western powers and their lackeys in the Western media starting in 1975 and ending in 1979, in bringing down the Peacock Throne. 

Agha-ye Parsa

Man keh goftam hagh baa shomaast! Haalaa digeh cheraa enghadr baalaa-o paa-een miparid?

I am very glad you have got a chance to disseminate all your 'wisdom' with us simpletons on this site. I am even certain that in the process you have managed to convince a few who wanted to be convinced by your tales. Good luck and please don't give up reading, but if I may make a small suggestion that you try to stick to factual books rather than story books.

Have a lovely rest of the weekend! 

PS: If you are incapable of being civil, please don't waste my time.

PPS: Yes, please send me you account detail so that I can transfer the money for the bridge. 

This illusion of

This illusion of invincibility of the Shah (enforced by our general inferiority complex toward the west) was greatly reduced once the west was percieved as not fully supporting the Shah. This by no means amounts to 'conspiracy'.

The phrasing may not be evocative enough. What I see as inferiority complex, was not only during the Shah (shared by everybody, including the Shah and Mossadegh) but also it did reflect as a 'green light' for Iranians, once they perceived the regime not being fully supported by the west. This may sound like 'anti imperialism' but it was -and is- mostly inferiority complex. Even fighting against 'imperialism' could not be started without their 'permission'!

Speaking of fire...

Who do you think caused the Cinema Rex fire on August 19, 1978, which was the 25th anniversary of 28 Mordad coup in 1953? The Savak? No way! The Savak was more or less a "Matarsak," a strawman! The fire was caused by Palestinians working for the mullahs. Also the Black Friday incident on September 18, 1978? That, too, was orchestrated by the mullahs, with help from the Palestianians (they fired into the Shah's army from rooftops on Jaleh Square, which forced the army to return fire and kill some 124 people).

Just think, why would the Savak choose 28 Mordad to set the fire at Cinema Rex -- the 28 Mordad coup was a victory for the monarchy, why would they deliberatly turn that date into a day of mourning? These two incindiary events (Rex and Jaleh Square) dramatically fanned the flames of the revolution, and they were manufactured and conspired by homegrown (mullahs) and outside forces.

A million books can be written about the 1979 conspiracy. Naive souls choose to think that it was "entirely an Iranian affair," poo-pooing millions of miles of evidence proving the contrary. Maybe you have an agenda for soiling the facts, maybe you're naive. Either way, you're 100% in the wrong.

For example, even if Iranian players were involved in the 1953 coup, the coup would not have happened BUT FOR the MI6 and the CIA, and their $300 million dollars spent in its efforts. Was there a massive conspiracy involving homegrown and outside forces to oust Mossadegh? Absolutely. As there was in ousting Reza Shah and Amir Kabir and the late Shah.

Every time Iran has had a modernizing leader, our homegrown traitors and judases (the Ulama, the communists, etc.) have conpsired with outsiders to destroy that forward-looking leader, for their own parasitic self-interest. After all, without the ridiculously irrational and treasonous actions of the Tudeh, Mossadegh may have survived, even with the CIA, MI6 and the Fedayoun-e-Islam trying to oust him.

England and Russia destroyed Amir Kabir, with help from the Ulama. England, Russia and the US destroyed Reza Shah, with help from the Ulama, who hated Reza Shah with a passion. And the UK and the US destroyed Mossadegh and the Shah with tremendous help from the Ulama, who resided over an extremely religious nation.

You choose to say it was entirely an Iranian affair. Frankly, that's not even uneducated, it's patently MORONIC. As I said earlier, the Iranian nation, even in September of 1978, would have accepted Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar in a democratic Constitutional Monarchy, in the order of England, Japan, Sweden, Spain, Norway, and others, IF the western media had not DELIBERATELY and CONVINIENTLY turned mullah Khomeini into the next "Ghandi," as they DELIBERATELY and CONVINEINTLY (and falsely) turned Saddam Hussein into a WMD threat, so as to destabalize the respective regimes. 

As with the JFK assasination, just ask yourself, who and why? Who benefited from the end of a modernizing nationalistic leader in Iran? And why? If you look at oil prices after 1979, and their massive and percipitious decline follwing the revolution, which not only boosted Western economies, but also forced the bankrupcy of the Soviet Union, you'll see that over 19 TRILLION dollars (in below market value of oil prices) were saved/made as a result of Zbigniew Brzisnski's "arc of crisis" theory and the elimination of the Shah.

The numbers don't lie.  

Go read Ervand Ebrahimian's masterpiece, and very objective "Iran Between Two Revolutions" for starters. Dozens of books are out there that can shatter your patently simplistic, bordering on laughable, almost farily tale-like thesis. 

bencross and Princess

It's ridiculously funny that a couple of all-knowing bloggers have the temerity and the onions to poo-poo the massive effectiveness of "any" support, which amounts to a "conspiracy," which can mean the difference between success and victory.

By your standards, JFK would have been assasinated with or without any "conspiracy." I'm not promoting victimhood here -- I have lived in the US since 1977 and am immune to such crippling insecurities. What I do know are facts -- based on reading over 50 books on the history of Iran, and thousands of articles.

And you're absolutely right, the 1953 coup would not have happened BUT FOR homegrown invovlement, specially from Ayatollah Kashani and Behbahani, who passed out "Behbahai dollars" promoting the coup.

However, if you're also objective and LEARNED, you will see, just as Lee Oswald could not have pulled off the JFK assasination all by his nutty lonesome self, Ayatollah Khomeini, aka Ayatollah BBC, could not have pulled off the revolution without MATERIAL support from the likes of:

Ebrahim Yazdi, aka Mr. Green Card, who was a known US spy.

The BBC, which on a nightly and daily basis promoted Ayatollah Khomeini, even broadcasted his tapes and times for protests, which is why he was given the moniker, "Ayatollah BBC."

And if you actually think that the media cannot make a difference, go tell that to Saddam Hussein, who was literally lynched because of an irresponsible (and almost culpable) campaigne of misinformation by the US/UK government/media establishment. 

The BBC was also very effective in destroying Reza Shah and Mossadegh. And as we all know, the BBC, unlike NBC, CBS and ABC in America, is OWNED by the British government. In fact, the British Foreign Minister appoints the head of the BBC Persian broadcast. Then there was the General Huyser mission, ordred by the Jimmy Carter, which pressured the neutrality of the royal army, which won the revolution for the mullahs.

I can go on and on... the facts are there. Were the people disenchanted with the Shah? Most certainly. But they would have accepted Bakhtiar's government, if the outsiders had not constantly and continuously fanned the flames of regime change, and if they had not promoted Khomeini to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in 1978/1979, even refering to him as the "Iranian Ghandi," (the US ambassador in Iran).

Not to mention the massive role of the foreign media in massively exaggerating the Shah's excesses, just as they massively exaggerated Saddam Hussein's WMD capability. Now, ask yourself -- how is it that the Shah was so wonderful and so good to his people in the late 1960's, even the early 1970's, after the purges of communists following 28 Mordad, and suddenly in the mid 1970's, the Shah was branded as a "tyrant" by the West? Western news organizations like "Life Magazine" did cover stories on the Shah and the royal family in the early 1970's and right after OPEC's creation in 1973 and right after the hike in oil prices, the western media was suddenly aware of "torture" in Iran.

It's like the dirty cop in the movie, Casablanca. Oh, there's gambling at Rick's? I'm shocked, shocked!  Get real! The west, after being pissed off at the Shah for his aggressive oil policies and for his huge role in creating OPEC, wanted no part of him anymore, specially after his famously (and to some extent suicidal) announcement that the oil concessions would not be extended, no way no how, after their expiration date of 1978 (what a shock that that's when the shit hit the fan in Iran!).

The West felt betrayed by the Shah. The British ambassador wrote back to London in 1973, "The Shah is getting too big for his boots." The articles are there for your reading pleasure.

A recent LA Times article describes how the destabalization of the Shah's regime started BEFORE Carter, when people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, in the Ford Administration, wanted to teach the Shah a lesson, and punish him for his aggressive and all too independent oil policies.

The Americans, in order to humble and paralyze the Shah and his grandiose vision, pressured the Saudis to produce 11 million barrels of oil per day in 1977, an UNGODLY sum, which sent the price of oil down like a cannon ball, which further augmented the failing Iranian economy in 1977/1978, which further added to the revolutionary fire.

Benross

As we can clearly see, there are still some conspiracy theorists who prefer to hold others responsible for their own shortcomings and mistakes. In fact, even the '53 coup, which was masterminded in Langley and Whitehall, would not have been successful without the help of Iranians.

Thankfully, however, the majority of Iranians have moved on from this victimhood mentality and are prepared to analyse and take responsibility for their actions and deal with their consequences. That is why I see a great future for Iran. 

As you say, the days of colonial and cold war mentality are long past. Thanks for articulating your thoughts on this. 

Princess, I'm with you on

Princess, I'm with you on this.

We may reasonably claim that foreign countries had some interest in stopping the Shah. They may have showed some extra 'enthusiasm', to the Shah opposition that it deserved. But they did not create the opposition and they did not -and could not- bring them to the streets. The fear of Iranians to express anything 'political' was mostly because they were seeing the mighty Shah with mighty SAVAK and mighty mighty west behind him. This illusion of invincibility of the Shah (enforced by our general inferiority complex toward the west) was greatly reduced once the west was percieved as not fully supporting the Shah. This by no means amounts to 'conspiracy'.

This conspiracy mentality obscures some historic facts that otherwise could stand their ground if not tainted by conspiracy explanations. We should do without our colonial and cold war time mentality. 

Whatever you say...

Hagh baa shomaast! 

Iranian Revolution

Was not a purely Iranian affair. It was heavily promoted by UK & US. The UK was mad the Shah was not going to renew the favorable oil deal. Jimmy Carter had and still has a thing for Islamic fundamentalists. Brezinsky wanted to use Islam to destroy the Soviet Union to free him real nation: Poland. He was happy to sacrifice Iran; Afghanistan and whatever else it took. They threw Iran to the wolves and we paid.

I used to like you be willing to give Jimmy Carter the benefit of the doubt. But after watching him and the results of his actions I no loger will. Jimmy Carter is the lowest form of human being possible. His actions brought to power Khomeini. Without him the UK was impotent to do anything. All the pains and torments of Iran; Afghanistan and many others are directly the responsibility of Jimmy Carter. The buck stops with that shameless man. He cost Iran; Iraq; Afghanistan millions of lives. He cost my own family our livelihood. He cost my father everything he had built. He also betrayed both Liberalism and America. The Americans rightly kicked him out. Just 4 years too late and the world paid. 

Princess

writes: "As far as I am concerned, the '79 revolution was an entirely Iranian affair." 

I have a bridge for you in Brooklyn. Would you like to buy it? You seem like the perfect candidate.

Talk about ignorance being bliss.

Naive, please do look it up.

"The movie"

Mr Parsa,

You might be right, I could be 'naive' in thinking that politics - especially at the White House level - is a game of strategy. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, I do not hold the grudge you seem to hold against Carter and his advisors. As far as I am concerned, the '79 revolution was an entirely Iranian affair. 

So I guess we just need to agree that you and I happen to disagree on Obama and Carter and their politics, but thanks for sharing your perspective anyway.

warmongering ramin

I touched a nerve didnt i ramin? the hezbollahi line is a tried and tested cliche by you warmongerers.

Piazcheh

I promise to do that, if only you promise to go back to Qom, or is it Karbala for you true Islamists???

By the way, this is another reason to group Obama with Carter, when the first black president gets the endorsement and enthusiastic approval of closet hezbollahis.

Buyer beware.

GOBAMA

ramin, go back to hotair, pajamasmedia, littlegreenfootball. This is Iranian.com. Unlike you, we dont request presidents to drop bombs and gasoline sanction our nation. 

Princess

You must be extremely young (read: naive). I've seen this pathetically impotent movie before, it was called the Carter Administratrion, circa 1978.

When Obama professes publicly that one of his most trusted advisors is no other than Zbigniew Brezinzksy, Cater's National Security Advisor, and long time friend of criminal Islamists like Ebrahim Yazdi, that pretty much says it all for me.

And then some wonder why it took Obama 10 DAYS to condemn the bloody crackdown in Iran back in June, while it only took him 3 HOURS to condemn the LEGAL removal of the leftist president of Hondurous. Just remember that the most successful salesmen, and often the most cunning and corrupt, were/are masters of articulation, specially when it comes to "verbalizing" their sales pitch.

By the way, if you haven't seen the above mentioned horror flick, let me tell you that it doesn't turn out very well for the nation of Iran, nor for its people.  But then again, we can't really help who we love.

Or can we?

Dido Princess

I love this man too & I must say that after a very LONG eight years of antagonism, animosity and hostility towards pretty much half the world, it is so refreshing to have a President that embraces culture, education and tolerance and above all is cheered on by the rest of the world. I find myself praying for him quite often.

omidkarimi

It is somewhat true that Obama is carrying many of Bush policies, but with a toothbrush ad quality smile!

But this smile is also carrying some fundamental secular values that now people of the world are willing to listen and emulate. Bush couldn't do this even in his dream.

I never thought of Bush as a good politician. Because he wasn't. But I remember his answer when he was asked what he knew about that shoe thrower. He replied 'I don't know anything about him, except that he wears shoes sized eight and a half.' (something of that nature, not exact wording)

If I want to remember Bush on good notes, I'll remember this!

A side note: a superpower doesn't give up its vital interests by presidential election. 

What a bunch of Obamabots you are

If it was Bush standing there and saying the exact same things, you would be posting and flaming the man into pieces. NONE of the major fascist shifts Bush changed with US society has been overturned by Obama.

And what do you think he means by "Biting sanctions"? North-Korea is already sanctioned to the point that you are lucky if a single ounce of grain is passed through. This means he want to take a good bite of Iran now. His actions wont take a grain away from Khameneis and IRGC tables (rest assured, they will be able to still deposit oil money into swiss and british banks), but our families back home will be bitten right away. 

Comparing North-Korea with Iran is absoloutely wrong, and sets the condition for future war and conflict.

What a utter complete disgrace by the nobel comitte to give this actor, this parrot, this wolf in sheeps clothing, the prize. The nobel peace price is now completely irrelevant. Peace means War, Warmongering is now a  "Moderate" thing to do, Sanctions and starvation are now tools of peace..

What a wonderful world this moron, this snake, is forming for our future children. I have not an ounce of respect for this man. 

----------------------------------

Discuss, chat and post your opinions about Iran on my new forum: www.IranBebin.com

Obama is on the right track

Which is helpful for us to focus on our own track.

OBAMA/JFK???

Well Sir,

            JFK death might be a conspiracy.  OBAMA is the first Afro-American president and JFK was the 1st Catholic president.  JFK wanted to pull the troops out of Vietnam, halted the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and wanted to tear CIA into pieces.  According to Warren Commission Report, Lee Harvey was the main assassin but in 1967, there was a further investigation by DA named Jim Garrison and he lost the case.  His death is a ghost that hunts us until this day.  IRAN might be like CUBA.  This might be Iranian Missle Crisis number two.  So far, his approval rate has not changed and is on 49 percent.  The Republicans are getting their credibility back like Sarah Palin who wants to investigate his birth-certificate (new conspiracy).

He is an excellent Orator ...

Probably the Best America Or the Free World for that matter ever had since Winston Churchill.

Now got to see how he can put into action his good will and noble intentions ...

THAT IS THE REAL CHALLENGE !

And it Won't be easy.

I Sincerely wish him and us Good Luck !

DK

Obama

is another JFK.  He's smart, he looks good and he's likable.  But he is, and he will be, weak legislatively.  And whatever he gets through Congress will be a watered down version of what it should be.  That was the real legacy of JFK, and it will be the real legacy of Mr. Obama.  

"America has never faught a war agaist any democracy"!!!

I beg to differ,

If Barak Obama tries to forget what their beloved CIA did to Iran`s democracy under the leadership of Dr. Mosadegh or tries to simply over look it and the result of such idiotic act which ended in killings of so many innocent Iranians, he can do so if his conscess is clear. I am not prepare to forget nor forgive that easily. Barak Obama may be a noble person but he is no saint. To compansate Iran is to to turn time back which is an impossibility. I wish they could at least appologize to Iranian people sincerely.

PS: the very same thugs that are killing Iranian youths right now are the same people refuged to after the fall of Dr. Mossadegh. Iranians are still screaming in the Siah Chals of the IRI and some lose their voice forever after long and sever torture. Because an idiot decided Iranians are not worthy of democracy 50 years ago.

I love this man.

I just hope he can prove to the world that an intelligent moderate politician with his power can make this world a better place.