VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Rehabilitating the Shah
02-Feb-2009
A common narrative concerning the Shah and the Pahlavi legacy unites much of Iran’s intelligentsia with liberal-left opinion in the West. According to this narrative, Mohammad Reza Shah’s father, Reza Shah, was an absolutist dictator who attempted to modernize Iran at the point of the gun and an entirely unacceptable pace. Meanwhile, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is depicted as a corrupt stooge and a “westoxicated” lapdog of American imperialism who, by squashing the authentic democratic urges of his people, ultimately empowered the fundamentalist scourge now raging in his homeland.
As the 30th anniversary of the late Shah’s departure from Iran approached, I had the opportunity to read Gholam Reza Afkhami’s magisterial biography of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, The Life and Times of the Shah, a text that goes a long way towards problematizing if not completely debunking this “consensus” narrative. Afkhami, who served as Deputy Minister of Interior before the Revolution, fully acknowledges that his biography goes against the common scholarly grain when it comes to assessments of the legacy of the Shah’s reign. And yet the University of California Press cannot be reproached for publishing Afkhami’s book, which is not only painstakingly researched and meticulously sourced but also draws on a rich, wide range of oral histories provided by key witnesses – members of the royal family, various courtiers, high level public servants, US and UK ex-officials, as well as leftist and Islamist opponents of the Shah’s regime.
The picture of the Shah that emerges from Afkhami’s biography is one of a deeply patriotic man committed to leading his nation to an advanced industrial state in tune with the diverse traditions and historical heritage of his people — what today might be celebrated as an “alternative modernity.” That said, the Pahlavi era was clearly plagued with a number of serious flaws, some of them originating in the monarch’s own character, most the product of the tragic conjuncture the Shah found himself confronting, one which forced him to balance development against the limitations of a mostly illiterate populace, nationalization of oil against dealing with great power antagonisms threatening Iran’s territorial sovereignty, and liberty against security in the age of the “black [fundamentalist] and red [communist] reactions.”
What follows represents what I, as a young Iranian-American rediscovering my homeland's historical heritage, found to be the three key insights to be drawn from The Life and Times of the Shah.
1. Reza Shah (Mohammad Reza Shah’s father) made invaluable contributions to the historical progress of Iran towards modern statehood, ones which completely outweigh the criticisms posed by his detractors.
Afkhami’s account of the ascent of Reza Khan Mirpanj to the Peacock Throne serves as a sort of extended prologue to The Life and Times of the Shah. At the time, the vast majority of Iranian were racked with abject poverty and denied the right to a life of dignity by the feudal system maintained by the Qajar Dynasty. The nation was also forced to make one humiliating capitulation to foreign powers after another. These capitulations essentially surrendered Persian sovereignty to the Russian and the British, who exercised de facto control over their respective “zones of influence” in the country. Meanwhile, the cowardly Qajar kings, princes, and potentates worried more about securing their foreign-paid “allowances” than protecting Iran and improving the common lot of their people.
common narrative concerning the Shah and the Pahlavi legacy unites much of Iran’s intelligentsia with liberal-left opinion in the West. According to this narrative, Mohammad Reza Shah’s father, Reza Shah, was an absolutist dictator who attempted to modernize Iran at the point of the gun and an entirely unacceptable pace. Meanwhile, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is depicted as a corrupt stooge and a “westoxicated” lapdog of American imperialism who, by squashing the authentic democratic urges of his people, ultimately empowered the fundamentalist scourge now raging in his homeland.
Against this backdrop, the rise to power of Reza Khan — who was singularly devoted to re-asserting Iran’s national sovereignty and moving the country forward over against the forces of feudalism and obscurantism – can only be viewed as a fundamentally liberatory development and a watershed moment in Iran’s history. That the steps he took towards modernizing a backward nation involved some swift, “authoritarian” decisionism and that he digruntled some deeply entrenched classes and interests (especially the ulama) are neither unique to Reza Shah nor particularly unsettling – all such attempts do. But the changes introduced by Reza Shah were nevertheless overwhelmingly positive. In fact, ordinary Iranians, and particularly women, continue to this day and despite the Islamic Republic’s incompetent and unjust rule, to benefit from pieces of Reza Shah’s legacy!
Afkhami puts the lie to the caricaturized tale of the British handpicking and grooming the Cossack officer to rule in their interests: that the British came to initially support him because they favored a strong national government in Tehran over a crumbling Qajar edifice does not discredit Reza Shah’s aims and actions. As Afkhami shows, Reza Shah refused to submit to British and Russian interferance in Iran’s affairs despite the limitations placed on him by Iran’s relative weakness vis-a-vis these great powers. Afkhami also undermines another commonly held misconception about Reza Shah, which claims that he was forced to abdicate by the British and Russians because he was an admirer of Hitler or had Hitlerite inclinations. In fact, during WWII, Reza Shah followed the standards of neutrality to the letter, expelling all German experts by the deadlines set by the Allies. That he fell out of favor with the British, Afkhami argues, had more to do with his insistence that the agreed-upon royalties for oil be paid by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) than with his alleged siding with the Axis. “The more the shah stood on his rights,” Afkhami writes, “the more acerbic became the British propaganda against him.”
In other words, if anyone in Iran’s history was a true victim of good, old-fashioned imperialism, it was Reza Shah - to whom all Iranians owe a profound debt of gratitude.
2. There is far more than meets the eye when it comes to Mossadegh and the infamous coup that deposed him.
When Reza Shah abdicated the Peacock Throne, Iran was once again in turmoil and under foreign occupation. The British considered re-instating the Qajar Dynasty in the form of Crown Prince Hamid Mirza Qajar, but ultimately decided against him in favor of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi since they could not find a single instance in the history of Persian monarchy of a previously deposed dynasty returning to power and, more importantly, since Hamid Mirza could not even speak Persian.
The young Shah retained his father’s insistence on Iran’s sovereign right to freedom from foreign interferance in her affairs. He was convinced that Iran’s best path towards independence was economic development. To successfully traverse this path, Iran needed to maximize its oil profits. Early in his reign, the Shah made a number of concerted efforts towards nationalization of oil, which he considered a “noble substance,” a gift from God to benefit the Iranian nation. The Shah however, was also a believer in gradualism: he knew that Iran lacked the capacity or expertise needed to successfully refine, market, and distribute its own oil. Therefore, he sought to renegotiate Iran’s contract with the AIOC to obtain better terms for his country until such time when Iran would be able to fully enter the complex international oil market on its own.
The Shah thus initially supported Dr. Mossadeq’s aggressive stance vis-a-vis the AIOC. Mossadeq however, did not believe in the Shah’s gradualism. Moreover, Mossadeq, who in many ways still lived in the 1920s, lacked the Shah’s in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the modern oil industry and the sensitive geopolitics underpinning it. Thus when he took radical steps to nationalize oil, Mossadeq put Iran’s basic economic wellbeing at great risk. In response, the AIOC in conjunction with the other supermajors simply pushed Iran out of the oil market while London mounted a largely successful economic blockade against Tehran. These developments played out much as the Shah had predicted — and yet throughout these painful days, the Shah continued to support his premier in word and deed.
As Afkhami explains, it was not until Mossadeq accorded himself unconstitutional emergency powers (suspending the Majlis, etc.) and began to speak openly against the crown that the Shah turned against him. The events that followed have gained mythical status among opponents of the Shah. But as Afkhami shows, the coup against Mossadeq was largely homemade and enjoyed solid support among broad segments of Iranian society. Crucially, the primary push behind the coup was provided by the Imperial armed forces who, since the time of Reza Shah, had developed a special relationship with the crown, one marked by profound loyalty to and affinity for the person of the Shah who represented the sovereignty, power, and will of the Iranian nation.
Afkhami does not deny the fact that the CIA and SIS played a role in the coup; however, he demonstrates that the extent of American and British involvement in the affair was greatly exaggerated in the accounts disclosed by American officials themselves (especially Kermit Roosevelt). These dubious first person accounts in turn serve as the sole sources of information in the narratives offered by liberal historians like Stephen Kinzer. Further distorting perceptions of the coup, Afkhami argues, was many Iranians’ false conviction that the American and British possessed almost “occult powers.” (This debilitating sense of national inferiority in relation to the all-powerful, conspiratorial West – what I would call the “Uncle Napoleon Complex” – continues to prevent Iranians from objectively assessing their place in the world and taking ownership of their collective destinies.)
The success of the coup saw Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi reach the zenith of his prestige, popularity, and confidence as a monarch, allowing him to pursue head-on his magnificent dream of developing Iran into an advanced industrial state.
3. The Shah’s vision of Iran as a “Great Civilization” amounted to an alternative modernity poised between the grandeur of the ancient Persian empire and the promise of Western innovations in science and politics - its loss represents a great national tragedy.
Much of The Life and Times of the Shah is devoted to exploring the Shah’s numerous development dreams and projects. The Shah viewed his life mission as developing Iran into an advanced industrial state — what he called a “Great Civilization,” one which looked back with pride on its ancient heritage and looked forward to a dignified, independent future. Oil was the gift from God that was meant to help Iran reach this status. Since he knew that Iran’s share of this “noble substance” would some day run out, the Shah emphatically insisted on diversifying Iran’s economy and fostering a private sector which would eventually come to replace oil as the basis of Iran’s economic life.
When it came to development, Afkhami suggests, the Shah may have been too ambitious and too aggressive. (His land reform efforts, for example, were somewhat misguided and failed to do much for the average Iranian farmer.) Yet the immense challenges involved in transitioning Iran from a disease-stricken, illiterate, semi-feudal country to a modern state perhaps called for the Shah’s aggressiveness. And the Shah’s achievements in many arenas were remarkable: rapid GDP growth, vastly increased literacy rates, the launching of a range of manufacturing operations (including steel production), and the development of natural gas piplines stretching from the Gulf to the Soviet Union are a few examples. The Shah also linked the emancipation of women to his development efforts. Consequently, gender relations in Iran were radically transformed during his reign, allowing women to emerge from second-class status to assume productive roles in Iran’s political and socio-economic development.
Yet development was a double-edged sword for the Shah, for it angered the powerful ulama to whom modernity was anathema. Ironically, since it far out-paced political reform, economic development also radicalized a petulant, confused generation of newly-educated Iranians who would soon embrace a charismatic cleric from Khomein in order to put an end to the Shah’s beautiful dreams.
And the rest, of course, is history.
| Recently by ganselmi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Nine Theses | 4 | Jul 13, 2009 |
| Postcard Diplomacy | 69 | Mar 22, 2009 |
| Democracy and Natural Right | 8 | Feb 13, 2009 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
To Ostaad:
by ganselmi on Fri Feb 06, 2009 01:10 PM PSTWhat I mean by that term is Iranians' sense of ever being subverted and tricked by an all-powerful, occidental Other. Now it may well be the case that this tendency to explain every historical phenomenon by way of conspiracies is rooted in past colonial interventions. But this does not render our paranoid national discourse any less suspect or worthy of criticism. (And I wouldn't be the first to have pointed this out!) It's completely fair to point to a national mode of consciousness or a national discourse and one need not resort to pop psychology to do so: just listen to how you sound as you construct your support for the IRI, not because it offers a positive theory of how Iran should be governed, but out of resentment and rage towards a real or perceived foreign conspirator. My friend, you exemplify our "national inferiority complex."
Ganselmi, you're not making any sense
by Q on Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:36 PM PSTthe burden of proof is on the person who is trying to make a statement and prove something.
In this case, the facts are not disputed: The capitulation law was wrong and humiliating. The Shah made a mistake there.
What is disputed is the excuses which are not facts, but value judgements that you have put forth as to justify that mistake. You and Afkhami have absolutely not met any burden of proof to say that mistake is justified. In making those value judgements, Afkhami's loyalties makes him very biased.
You have also made another mistake. You have acted like a used car salesman and gotten invovled in a naked defense of your book in an unobjective way. You could have easily moved more paper by staying out of the polemics. What's even worse is that you are making it needlessly personal.
Lastly, either you are ignorant or just so full of false pride that you can't admit another clear mistake. Using the phrase "the Gulf" is not a "short hand", it is a well known tactic by those who do not want to call it "Persian Gulf". Every petition that seeks to protect the historical name mentions this.
ganselmi, let me clarify...
by Ostaad on Fri Feb 06, 2009 02:35 PM PST"inferiority" and "complex" were your words not mine. I am not sure what qualifies you to diagnose Iranians' views about the US/Britain historically documented and proven interferences in Iraninian affairs by using psychological terms, and even come up with a ridiculous and meaningless terms such as "uncle Napoleon COMPLEX".
The reasons why I find your review of Mr. Afkhami's book, who has never been a scholar, shallow and even un-professional is your denigrating the works of others who have been read and reviewed by people far more qualified than you. I suggest that you read Mr. Shaul Bakhash's review of this book too.
I never said nor did I imply that you were paid to write a book review, period. By "selling" I simply used the metaphor for promoting the book.
As for your "Gulf" brain fart that you are trying to pass as a "short hand", let me inform you there's no shuch a short hand for Persian Gulf except in Arab publications. The term "Gulf" has been deliberately coined and used by the Arabs, and other Iran-haters, who resent Iran and its place in that region. I'm sorry you don't seem to realize this simple fact.
I'm still scratching my bald head about what would possibly make me resentful, other than the time I have wasted reading your low grade review.
Resentment
by ganselmi on Fri Feb 06, 2009 04:43 AM PSTOstaad,
Your spewings represent the height of resentiment ("oghdeh"). If you were right, anybody who writes favorable book reviews is being secretly paid to do so -- do you realize how absurd that is?
And I won't even address your below-the-belt remark on my use of "the Gulf," which can indeed serve as shorthand for "Persian Gulf."
All The Shah's Men By Stephan Kinzer (A Summary) ... ;0)
by Darius Kadivar on Fri Feb 06, 2009 09:56 AM PSTActually the Stooge Stephan Kinzer based his so called research on the CIA Coup on my Feedback and he got it all Wrong ...
What he was actually trying to describe was the Coup at the Italian Court. It was all the fault of the Duke who got the Duchess who did the Doge that is ...
Get It ? Got it ! Good ! ...
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lAFDbnMLA
Oostad!
by Fatollah (not verified) on Thu Feb 05, 2009 02:02 PM PSTI don't think Ganselmi has a venomous agenda like that of Mike Wallaces, beside the Shah spoke of something that it took Jimmy Carters and intellectuals a like 30+ years to admit!
I think it would be wise of him not unclench his fist to foreigners and foreign reporters. I wish he had formed better bonds with domestic repoters! He should have acted like populist leaders, the source of domestic controversys.
I wish, the Shah should have known how shallow the bond between him and his people was! Now that is a pity.
Regards Fatollah
Yours Is an Unjust Burden of Proof Q!
by ganselmi on Thu Feb 05, 2009 02:16 PM PSTQ,
Your tone towards the author is reminiscent of the prosecutors at Stalinist show trials, or better yet the "revolutionary" courts set up right after the revolution in Iran! Like when you write: "Having the some of the right facts (like acknolwedging Capitulation law was wrong and humiliating) by itself is not enough. Many Nazi apologists admit to provable facts but have tons of excuses to justify them and I saw very similar thing in your response."
The problem with placing such a huge burden of proof on Afkhami is twofold:
(1) while you have the right to approach his work with an added grain of salt given his former position, ultimately his access to the truth cannot be categorically denied in light of it, especially if his account meets general standards of historical scholarship (use of primary and secondary sources, incorporation of first person testimony, responding to reasonable counterpoints, etc. etc.) That is to say: Mr. Afkhami has produced a scholarly work. You may be skeptical about his ideological orientation, but you cannot place a higher burden of proof on his account. Furthermore, you cannot deny the fact that his former position also works to the benefit of his work as a scholar. After all, he has access to sources and has been privy to conversations that your average historian may not reach.
(2) At a political level, your argument is comletely unsound. The parallel you've drawn between the Pahlavi regime and Nazi Germany just won't stand. Mr. Afkhami is not a former Nazi (or anything close to it) being forced to recant. He was a public servant in a government which, according to the preponderance of world opinion, was far more legitimate and responsible than the current government in Tehran. The comparison between the Shah should thus be insulting not just to his supporters but to all Iranians.
oostad
by anonymouse009 (not verified) on Thu Feb 05, 2009 01:29 PM PSTOOstad: Why don't you write your own book with your own real name??? Since you're an Oostad! Look forward to reading your book. Have you ever written a book? If you have, please let us know.
Q!
by Fatollah (not verified) on Thu Feb 05, 2009 01:29 PM PSTHow about all of the Western European countries? Were they not the stooges of the USA? Not just the third world countries, as you mention them! By the way, if the Shah was a stooge as you put it, how come the other stooges used their media to attack the one US stooge?
Besides, where do you live Q? It matters a lot too!
Regards Fatollah
IRI Carrying water for
by stop (not verified) on Thu Feb 05, 2009 01:18 PM PSTIRI Carrying water for Russia, the US and Europe is a sign of independence?
Russia being the biggest pimp of them all. stop the nonsense. A grandson of Khomeini trying to lecture us on objectivity and credibility, plzzzzzzzzzzzz!
ganselmi, where's the "Gulf"?
by Ostaad on Thu Feb 05, 2009 01:22 PM PSTI just want to reiterate that my focus is your review of Afkhami's book. Of course Mr. Afkhami has made his views about the Shah know in his book and he will be responsible for them. Since I have not read it, and I don't think I'm going to, I can't criticize him for those view. I do agree with Q that, as a loyal courtier, he cannot produce a scholarly work about the Shah. Afkhami, and many other Pahlavi groupies abandoned the Shah and left Iran before the Shah in order to write about his life. I firmly believe he and others like him whose status depended on the Shah should have shown more integrity and stuck by him to the end.
But, back to you, Sir or Madam. You show your own bias and lack of credibility by pointing out, "These dubious first person accounts in turn serve as the sole sources
of information in the narratives offered by liberal historians like Stephen Kinzer.
Further distorting perceptions of the coup, Afkhami argues, was many
Iranians’ false conviction that the American and British possessed
almost “occult powers.” (This debilitating sense of national
inferiority in relation to the all-powerful, conspiratorial West". How can first person accounts be "dubious", specially when those accounts have been collaborated by history and many serious historians?!!! I don't know any serious Iranian who thinks the Brits and Americans have "occult powers". Your pop psychology quip that a "sense of national inferiority" has caused many Iranians to look at these two countries as meddlers in Iran's affair is nonsense. But you can be forgiven for such brain droppings because your role is to plug his book.
You also wrote, "...the development of natural gas piplines stretching from the Gulf to the Soviet Union are a few examples". Genselmi, I let the Shah HIMself educate you about the "Gulf". Here it is:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY
Have fun selling.
Ganselmi
by Q on Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:24 PM PSTfirst of all, the fact that this was a member of the inner circle and is a staunch defender of the institution he is "researching" matters a lot. He has a bigger burden to be fair and objective. He has to go out of his way to overcome this perception. It is absolutely relevant and fair to bring this up.
Unless you trust Ranfsanjani to provide an "objective" analysis of Khomeini, you also have to be very skeptical of what Afkhami says.
Second, having the some of the right facts (like acknolwedging Capitulation law was wrong and humiliating) by itself is not enough. Many Nazi apologists admit to provable facts but have tons of excuses to justify them and I saw very similar thing in your response.
Who cares if Greece was also a stooge (US toppled a government there too, by the way) and all of the third world was divided up between the two super powres. This does not mean Shah's stoogery was right or excusable, and it severely undermines the general notion that he was "gradually" moving toward reform.
Who cares what "benefits" were sold to Iran in exchange for cheap oil. It was wrong and ultimately, History showed that it was not worth the humiliation. So a clear proven mistake that no excuse can justify.
I'm sorry (whoever the other blatent blind apologist is), 1977 was too late. You can't carry water for the Americans, serve as the Western attck dog of the region, miss serious opportunity to show independence and anti-colonialist credentials, and then only in 1977, try to raise the Oil prices to benefit Iranians? Please...
Which one was worse?
by hooshie on Thu Feb 05, 2009 09:50 AM PSTAmerican military personnel receiving immunity from prosecution for the offences they never committed OR Palestinian militia killing Iranian nationals inside Iran with impunity?
//kenyonreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/iranpulitzer.jpg
And talking about stooges: to whom did he gladly lend his ear?
//iranian.com/Times/Subs/Revolution/Feb99/arafat.html
Mr. Scrooge
by piraam (not verified) on Thu Feb 05, 2009 07:09 AM PSTQ, aren't you getting tired of using the 3-decade old propaganda/half truths? Why are you trying to silence others? Your credibility is already in disrepute, you don't need to further damage it.
Why don't you write your own book about the Shah, you obviously think very highly of yourself.
You are the all-knowing, omniscient little Q, aren't you? I'm certain publishers are waiting for your slightest gesture to flock to your altar and publish your mother-of-all book from the most brilliant mind of our time.
Why do you think you have the moral standing to criticize anyone (even the LA gang members or slothful ex-pats in tehran geles) let alone the Pahlavis while you're a staunch supporter of the goons in the Islamic Republic?
To Q,
by ganselmi on Thu Feb 05, 2009 05:58 AM PSTQ,
I will answer your question, only because it represents the only critical comment that has attacked the book on its merits rather than simply attacking Mr. Afkhami on the basis of his former position as a deputy minister.
The book addresses the '64 law extensively, describing it as capitulatory and humiliating especially in light of the history foreign interferance in Iran's affairs.
That said, the problem the Shah faced -- as much as he's on the record decrying that terrible law -- was that the US military contingents in other countries (Greece, etc.) benefited from similar forms immunity in the status of forces agreements the US had signed with said countries. So Iran's case was not unique.
Moreover, MAAG and other US military representatives in Iran had also contributed a great deal to development of the imperial armed forces into a modern military that could serve as a decisive regional counterpoint to less US-friendly states in the region. Recognizing these two realities, the Shah decided to let the '64 law stand. His PM bungled the issue of how to message it to the people and the Majlis, partly because he himself did not understand the full implications of the law.
So there you have it: we Iranians often relish simplicity (sancta simplicitas!), but when you look at an event or issue from more than one side, complexity inevitably arises and we are prevented from being able to easily condemn someone like the Shah a stooge and be done with it.
badly informed Q
by Behrooz (not verified) on Thu Feb 05, 2009 04:59 AM PSTWell Mr or Mrs Q
You are badly in need of a profound education. Please go and read a few books and by that I mean independent books not the ones authored by IRI and its cronies
Firstly Shah was the founder of OPEC and also in 1977 he hiked the price of oil to over $40 per barrel. Also after construction of Booshehr petrochemical plant he still wanted to raise the price further and in 1356 the intention was over $100.
Please go and read the book 10 interview with Shah which is the details of his interviews with world media between 1974 and 1979.
Also read “Interview with history” by Orianal Falachy.
Secondly capitalisation was an exadurated myth. What was given to the foreign and American national was a diplomatic immunity to a selected few. a practice which is done in any country even in today’s West
This was blown out of the proportion by the left communist and Toodeh party and Islamists and mullahs cash up on it without anyone having the dignity to put the records right. Go and read the book “Answer to History” by the Shah himself
If you want to know the real story behind the revolution read the book “akharin tallaash ha dar akharin rooz ha “
By Ebrahim Yazdi who was Khomeini’s right hand man
And also the “Memoirs of general Huyzer” to undrestant the role of US and CIA in the whole afair
Thirty years on many of these facts have came out and many of conspirators and oil companies behind the revolution have confessed to their role and reasons, butlike of you are still beating on the same old drums of stupidity and denial. You really need to read a few independent books and broaden your knowledge before opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself.
Can Afkhami explain the capitulation law in 1964?
by Q on Thu Feb 05, 2009 03:21 AM PSTEven if we are to believe "gradualism", how does capitulation fit in?
I mean, if the Shah was not a stooge and completely misunderstood, how do we explain him granting complete legal immunity to thousands of American advisors and military personnel, arguably the very thing that made Khomeini?
How do you explain Shah heavily resisting INCREASING the price of oil in the wake of the 1973 crisis? The very act that gave him all that money, was opposed by him which only benefits Americans? Why?
If it was a matter of "gradualism", why didn't Shah pursue a deal better than the measily 20% oil revenues that American/British companies were willing to share in the aftermath of Mossadegh?
These are just fantasies. Afkhami knows his audience well. Throw together a sympathetic portrayal of the Shah together with casting doubt on Mossadegh and ignore all the evidence in favor of "personal research" and you've got a best seller among the most out-of-touch community of exiles on earth. It's a bed time story for people who rather be dreaming about a paradise that never was.
The real problem
by Behrooz (not verified) on Thu Feb 05, 2009 01:43 AM PSTI believe that is about time to realise that the real problem with the followers of MKO cult, Beche Akonds and joojeh communist diaspora, has noting to do with Shah and who he was or what he did or did not do. They have accepted this in the back of their mind long time ago that Shah's era was a thousand times better than IRI. This is the reason why they are still struggling to come to terms with themselves and where they stand. This is why when ever they hear Shah’s name they become so restless starting to attack anything and everything. If Shah and his era was as bad as they say then why worry? Why not leave the judgement to Iranians people. After all isn’t it true that we should be easily able to distinct the difference. If their ideology and cause was right and just and their revolution had any legitimacy than why not putting their trust in people’s judgment. After all do not they believe in power of masses and judgment of people or NOT??!!
Unless they might have a deeper darker agenda and concern about themselves and what they really have problem with and struggle to accept is the fact that they have made a mistake and coked it up badly by siding with Khomeini and collaborating is the mayhem of 1979 MKO Jebhe Melli and communist alike.
However my advise to these guys is that they might be able to burry their head in sand and choose not to see the truth for the time being. But they can rest assured that ultimately history will judge them and will judge them harshly for their deceit and treason
To: A historian
by Anonymousx (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 07:01 PM PSTYou said:
...a country that has been ruined morally by the Pahlavis
You are doing "exactly" what you warn others of not doing, being a partisan (or ideologue to be more exact).
The only reason that you are wise enough and able enough to leave IRI behind "is" because of Pahlavis, despite all their short-comings. Had Pahlavis not existed, you would be living in an Afghanistan or Pakistan or Turkamenestan or Kergizestan or... trading opium or working in a minor government office if you were luck and alike.
Maybe it is time for you to re-review your history books so you realize that:
(a) Pahlavis were not so bad considering where iran was and what kind of monsters shah had to deal with -- the same ones that have been running iran for the past 30 years. Maybe you should review who shah's prisoners were and how many of them turned out to be decent once the table turned.
(b) Pahlavis aside, there were "very" honorable people in government who loved iran (unlike IRI whom no decent collaborate with) and worked for iranians, but had to run away or be executed by IRI, likes of Dr. Farrokhroo Parsay.
Get real and wise up. Had shah's regime continued, you and I would most likely be in iran, and iran most likely be no worse than S. Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Brazil, or Gulf states -- all of which were well behind iran in development in 1979 but iranians joy today to be able to immigrate to if they can.
A wake up call from a historian
by A historian (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 04:45 PM PSTIt is sad to read the review and most of the comments on it, for these commentators have not been raised in the IRI, but in a country where they must have had access to scholarly books and university education. No one can believe the utterances of a former shah's collaborator as a serious history, however embellished it may be with documents. Every historian knows that any partisan writer can choose his "facts" to construct a "history" he pleases and pleases his readers. It is sad to see the history of a country that has been ruined morally by the Pahlavis and their successors treated so suprficially. Some people never learn.
Fair: I do agree with you.
by truthteller (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 04:19 PM PSTFair: I do agree with you. He was not decisive leader. I had no idea he was sick for that long.
To truthteller
by Fair and impartial (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 01:36 PM PSTThe late shah, may he eternally rest in peace, was completely paranoid among so many other things and did not trust anybody.
His paranoia got much worse after 1953. He was afraid to relinquish power to any of his close entourage out of the fear that he might not be able to reclaim it later, in spite of having known that he was terminally ill and unable to be decisive and FIRM!
He was quite inconsistent even when he made any decision.
His own wife had no idea he had cancer and he had it since 1973.
The Shah's own mistakes caused the revolution to succeed, of course there were certainly external elements helpful to the success of the revolution but the late Shah's indecisiveness and personality were the most instrumental factors.
The anti-Shah propaganda is
by truthteller (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:49 AM PSTThe anti-Shah propaganda is mind boggling, only in the sense that it has been so effective and enduring after thirty years despite all the documentation to the contrary. See the following interview with the Shah where he believes as a fact that there were $250 million spent to overthrow him. Who provided that huge amount of money in 1978, in real Dollars that is equivalent to $4 billion today.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKUQUDf5IBo&feature...
The Dead Will rise as always dear Alborzi
by justicewillprevail (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:04 AM PSTThe dead will rise, my Islamist friend, didn't you know that?
That is the Day of Justice and final settlement of all accounts. If some people think that they are shrewd enough and can get away with their wrong doings. Islamists should read the Koran more carefully before they commit crimes against humanity.
Wishful thinking
by Alborzi (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:23 AM PSTThere is a saying in Persian, I am not sure if I remember it correct (its been 30 years), "Shotor dar khab binad panbehdaneh, gahy loff loff khorad gah daneh daneh", it does not matter how you wish the history was, the reality is Shah is dead and bones, Iran has moved on, so stop the useless analysis and help Iranians.
I don't believe anything the
by jsldf (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 09:51 AM PSTI don't believe anything the CIA or the Brits says. Haven't you learned your lesson people? why don't you use your own common sense instead of leaving your brain to the CIA to do the thinking for you??
Are you that naive to believe the colonizers?? When are we going to learn?
Don't you wonder why in the world the CIA would voluntarily wants to incriminate itself in such a sensitive issue like a coup?
Why would they admit to manufacturing a coup? How many other coups the CIA admitted to manufacturing? How many other reports such as Ajax are out there?? Does anyone know?
Why being so selective?
by Fair and impartial (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 08:24 AM PSTIt is mindboggling to see how selective you guys are when it comes to believing what the West says.
You accept what the West says when it suits your beliefs, opinion and ideology, or agenda and outright reject whatever the West says when it does not suit or agree with your beliefs, opinion, ideology or agenda.
Why don't you believe the West with the same conviction when the West so strongly suspects IRI of working towards building a bomb?
Still questioning the role of the CIA?!!!
by Ferdos36 (not verified) on Wed Feb 04, 2009 07:18 AM PSTIt is just amazing that even after the CIA admitted its role in the coup in a full page NY Times article, after so many scholarly books have been written, after Donald Wilbur, Kim Roosevelt and other Americans offered their accounts of how the CIA staged and orchestrated the coup, our Iranian friends still do not want to accept that it was a coup designed by the British and the Americans with Iranian involvement. Let's see, some names come to mind: General Fazlollah Zahedi, General Nassiri, Timsar Batmanglidj, the Rashidian brothers, Sha'ban Ja'fari (bee mokh) the numerous members of the majlis who were paid by the British,
Jalali and Keyvani, and many many more of the Iranians who chose to side with the foreign agents against their own country. In fact, I always say that they are the real criminals because they chose greed and power over their homeland. In any country in the world they would be tried for treason. Instead the man who defended his nation at the Hague and at the United Nations was tried by the Shah for treason, sent to two years of imprisonment in a fragile state and exiled for the rest of his life.
I wonder if Mr. Afkhami mentions any of this... I am curious to know. Until then, I will not make a judgement about his book.
FA
Amazing!
by Anonymousx (not verified) on Tue Feb 03, 2009 08:13 PM PSTAmazing that Islamists/leftists never trust anything west does or says except when it is against the shah.
Kermit whom islamists curse for staging the coup of '53 suddenly truns into an Emam with his book considered holier than Bible when it suits the ideologues. One wonders: if Kermit is a good trustworthy guy or not? Or does it depends on the circumstances?
One can like or dislike the shah, one can like or dislike the islamic republic, but the weirdest combination is to dislike and curse the shah and praise the most criminal regime in iranian history (towards iranians) that the islamic republic is at the same time. It is stupidity at its best, hypocrisy at its worst, and overcoming of ideology over the beaten and broken down iran that the ideologues pretend to be their country, treating her as a second class citizen to islam and arab causes, and not worthy of any better government than the criminal islamic republic.
I wonder Why Ostaad Has A Royal Avatar ? ...
by Darius Kadivar on Tue Feb 03, 2009 05:45 PM PSTWhat are you doing here anyway ? ...
If You hate the monarchy why do you celebrate it with your Avatar to begin with ? ...
You know how we Treat Traitors and double agents of your kind in This Kingdom ?
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9X6dxQ3nIk
So Behold the Pale Horse
LOL