ALIREZA

DK

I have to agree with Norooz. When it comes to Shah, what he said and his actions were two different things. When things were calm and he felt like he had a firm grip on power, he thumped his chest and acted as if he is the one calling the shots. When things were unstable as in 1953 and 1979 he turned to west for help. It is well documented that in 1979, when his regime was losing control, he asked his advisors "What does America want me to do?" He was waiting for orders to crush the uprising with the blessing of the US, or any other ideas America would give him to remain in power. He was getting mixed messages from the US to both crush the uprising and to give in to the demands of protesters. This time America didnt come to his rescue, instead they hoped something could be worked out with the Bakhtiar Regime. Regardless of all the details, whether there is a king, velayat faghih, president for life, or what have you, it is counter-productive to a democratic society. It is ironic that many Iranians today live in relatively democratic western nations and still support the idea of a Shah, Rahbar, etc. The colonists came to America 250 years ago in order to escape from religious fascism and monarchist rule. They tried to make George Washington a king, but he refused. Yet there are still some Iranians that just love to have some figure they can make an absolute unchallenged ruler for life.

This bnamus is another

This bnamus is another pahlavi lover defending pahlavis by portraying himself as a researcher and historian.  Researcher my foot.  A fifth grader knows more about Iran history than you.

DK,

Was Shah playing politics? Was he waking up?  I am not sure. But his actions spoke louder than his words.  

You are running out of candidates.  Who are you going to kiss, if RP has a heart attack tomorrow?  

Western Puppet Indeed ... (sic)

Shah of Iran: "We are not toys of any country Including the United State"

Shah Of Iran Critisizing Britain

Shahanshah OPEC (Speech) 1973 

at OPEC conference 25 Jan 71)

Shah of Iran & Mike Wallace on the Jewish Lobby - 35 Yrs ago

Recommended Blogs:

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ? 

YES, PRIME MINISTER: A Step By Step Guide To Mossadegh's Premiership and the Coup of '53 ...

bnamus

"Grow up you two bit historians who throw the coup of 1953 around as if to say you know something about our history and the wrongs that were done to us. Someone tell Stephen Kinzer that to deduce that if 1953 did not happen that Iranians would now be living in the best democracy the world has ever seen." - Bnamus.

You cannot write a piece challenging the widely accepted fact that the 1953 coup reinstalled a puppet dictatorship that served more the interests of the west, rather than best interest of Iranians, then tell people to "grow up" and call them "two bit historians". You say you gathered your information based on research. I am interested to know which history books or textbooks you are reading. The CIA website has a page which outlines the coup and how it brought the shah back to power. Go tell the CIA they are two bit historians and the coup was not really their doing.

No one claimed if 1953 had not happened Iran would be the best democracy in the world. We are simply saying it reinstalled a western puppet for the purpose of oil interests, and toppled a democratically elected Prime Minister who acted in Iran's interests. The Tudeh supported Mossadegh because he was popular, and they wanted to go for a free ride in order to take advantage of his standing. After all, they were Iranians also and allowing opposing groups to have a say is part of democracy. However with the shah being reinstalled he ruled with an iron fist and crushed all political opposition.     

I will say this, if the coup had not taken place, and the resulting government was a disaster, we would have no one to blame for it. Heck, the revolution in 1979 may never have happened. Let me point out that the current regime is largely in power now due to anti american sentiment which boiled over. Their rise to power and claim on legitimacy (what is left of it) is due to their anti American stance that many people had, largely in part due to western support for a dictator.  If the shah had not been reinstalled and heavily backed by the west despite his oppresive policies for 26 more years, would there really be a reason for anti American sentiment in 1979? Like I said, if you write such a piece challenging a widely accepted view of historical events, you should be able to accept criticism of your view rather than tell people to just "get over it."

bnamus

When Shah was on the verge of collapse, he was pulling a stooge out of his sleeves every other week, hopping they could fool people.  Bakhtiar was just one of them. The majority didn't know much about anyone but Khomeini.  Khomeini did make many appealing promises, but unfortunately soon after, everything took wrong turns. Some due to power struggles within the leaderships and some due to western involvements.  Unlike you, my observations are from experiencing the events, not researching a few decades later.  The same exact polices that effected Mosaddegh's government in 1953 still is on going.  The same oil sanctions then by British that dropped Iran's oil exports by 75% is happening today. The same propaganda, terroristic activities, bribing and etc. Not just in Iran, everywhere else as you mentioned.  But did we ever learn anything?  Look what was done to Mirsa koochak khan! what was done to Amirkabir, to Dr. Mosaddegh and many others! 

Again, you are using your imagination, ifs and maybe to create reasons to incriminate Mosaddegh, since the truth supports Mosaddegh.  Mosaddegh was a nationalist. He was involved in politics from young age and he has always been for freedom and democracy and opposed foreign control of our resources, wanted to be West, East, North or South.

Just wondering bnamus, why did you chose such a username for yourself? Should we really take everything you write as the truth and facts?

Language

Ladies and gentlemen a Coup happened in Iran in 1953....can u believe it. A coup also happened in Guatemala and in Chile and in Pakistan and in Turkey and in Portugal and in Haiti and in Sri Lanka and so on and so on and so on. Grow-up you two bit historians who throw the Coup of 1953 around as if to say you know something about 'our' history and the wrongs that were done to us. Someone tell Stephen Kinzer that to deduce that if 1953 did not happen that Iranians would now be living in the best democracy the world has ever seen. NEWSFLASH - Mossadegh did not want rid of the Monarchy - and Mossadegh's biggest backers - the tudeh party had their hands in the pockets of Russia - who knows perhaps we would have been a part of the USSR like Armenia - I suppose that would have been better according to Kinzer and his ilk. 

I wrote this piece not to discuss a historical fact: A coup took place in Iran in 1953, but to discuss the language used to describe the death of a man and how base so many so-called reporters and adjunct prophets can be. I for one am not interested in engaging in the residual politics of my parents generation and i did not grow up under the propaganda system of the Islamic Republic. I know what i know from my own research; Iranians if they really wanted equality and liberty in 1979 would have supported bakhtiar's government but they failed to do so and instead settled for the lowest common denominator possible: An abbreviated abomination known as an I.R.I 

Doctor mohandes

I still do.  When it comes to Ahmadinejad vs West and Israel and their agents.  This should serve you as a proof that even Ahmadinejad supporter cannot deny Dr, Mosaddegh's serveices, integrity, honesty, nonvilolent nature and ....

norooz

Look who is talking here!!

are you not the one here who walks up and downn this site and its blogs and bah bah and chah chahing his excellnecy's policies? and How he is defending the nation's rightS?? And now you are using that same thinga against those who are anti-mossadegh?

HAve you spoken out of both side of your mouths lately???

Dr.X

I don't think we are communicating properly here.Just foggataa about it.

Dr.X

I must admit Doc, you have made excellent points.    

To all the anti Mosaddegh characters I must say, you deserve what you've got, Mosaddegh was too much for you.  He should have left you under British control which meant British would have taken 90% of oil revenues till 1993.  So enjoy IRI for many years to come. 

Ya, right. that is what you have been dreaming about for 31 years. keep dreaming!

About Alireza, I get the feeling that there has been some arguments and tension between him, RP and Farah Rousta.

Doctor Mohandes

To answer your question, I am suggesting, Mossadegh would not have held on to power right up until the point that Operation Ajax was carried out...if the Shah had the majority of popular support. And also Shah would not have fled if he had the support of the majority, same as in 1979. There would not have been a need for such a complex operation carried out by CIA and MI6.... which by the way failed in the first attempt (And as a result of that Mossadegh stayed in power and Shah soiled his pants and left).

dr. x

Entities such as CIA or MI6 would not under the normal circumstances consider and incorporate popular sentiment into their decision making process. So what are you suggesting by saying that had the people wanted the shah to stay , Those agencies would have revisited their plans??

Siavash1000

How amazing that people put their own spin on history. No matter what history books you read, from East to West, will tell you that CIA and MI6 was responsible for Operation Ajax that brought Shah to power. The CIA themselves have declassified the documents and laid out in detail how it was done through bribery, propaganda, and terrorist activity which was carried out and blamed on Mossadegh to discredit him. What more proof do you want? Why did Shah flee the country so fast if he had such popular support? And you say people who were pro-democracy wanted shah back? What part of Shah's rule was democratic? Certainly if people wanted Shah "to crown as their king" there would be no need for the CIA and MI6 to cover up their activities for so many years, they could have simply openly carried out such activies with the premise of helping the popular, democratic Shah stay in power, and therefore be greeted as liberators.  If you are a true Iranian patriot, does it not disturb you that this coup was carried out with the Shah's full knowledge in order to preserve western control of a huge oil infrastructure? The British were certainly living very lavish lives from Iran's oil profits, so I can understand why they didnt want to give that up and let Iran's people get a fair share.

Fantastic article

I normally don't bother to comment but I had to this time. Thank you very much for a very good article, strong, to-the-point, and saying exactly what needed to be said. I also read Kinzer's article: the man is awful; and so is the lady adjunct professor whom you mentioned. Shame to both of them!

True Iran history

"The CIA and British knew what was good for us and had our best interests in mind..." Dr.X

The true history of Iran has been distorted mainly by Steven Kinzer or  in western media. The wish of our great nation wanting shah back to crown in 1953 had been ignored. Whole credit has been given to few lampoon who were paid chanting in support of shah. Even without Brits or U.S financial support, the force of pro-shah and pro-democracry people would have brought shah back to crown in 1953. Majority of people who attended demonstration were not paid by Brits or U.S , they were there out of their love for their smart leader shahanshah Pahlavi. Brits and U.S like other nations looking for their own interest. It may comply with wish of Iranian people or sometimes against the interest of Iranian people, but that is NOT determinating factor of our nation wish or will.    

Police Pathology Report. Where is it?

Anyone got the link to a proper police report? Or a medical statement? Or anything like normal? Any proven facts?

Quite frankly, I've never read so much ridiculous speculation, as the hysteria on this website in the passed few days. 

I'm actually working on a  theory myself: he was a bit bored after all the New Year's partying and decided to  play Russian Roulette with pixies and  fairies.

DUH!

"Stuff happens and some, one way or another, get stuffed"

Well

according to Fesenjoon Iranians are the worst people. All others are civilized and wonderful. Maybe these Iran bashes will see that hate and stupidity is not just in one place. Frankly "Tea Party" is the most hateful bunch of pigs in America.

Great Article

Bnamus, thank you for your article. Since Ali-Reza Pahlavi's sad passing, I have read with increasing disgust some of the historical revisionism, sensationalism, cruelty and patronizing arrogance that has come out of many corners as relating to the monarchy and Mr. Pahlavi. Kinzer's asinine nonsense really took the cake. Thank you for so eloquently expressing these sentiments in your article. Keep up the good work!

SOS

Actually you are the one who needs to be Re-educated. Comments to Kinzer are not worthy of reading since they are re-writing of history not history. Historical facts you refer to are falsifications not "facts".

And KKK is back! Sarah Palin was the cause of Congresswoman's

possible death? Now you see that despite all these problems at home, we are a very civilized society. What would you guys would have said if it was in iran? This is a sad day for the US. Damn racist republican tea party! Bunch of hateful animals. (i know it is a different subject, but it is more important). 

//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774

"God is love!"

@ Darius Kadivar

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family 

I am no Kennedy scholar but to the best of my knowledge, Rose Kennedy lost three sons; one in a plane crash during the war, one as President while serving his country and one as the candidate for presidency. The fourth son served as a senator to the US for decades. Rose Kennedy lived to be over 100 years old and never had to shed one tear for a child of hers who'd taken his own life.

Of the myriad Kennedy grandchildren (see family tree in Wikipedia), a handful were killed in skiing accidents, drug overdose and a plane crash or two. The majority of the Kennedy clan got on with their lives in public service and charitable work.  To the best of my knowledge not one Kennedy has taken his/her own life intentionally. The family has had its fair share of alcohol and drug problems, which appear to be part and parcel of the jet set lifestyle many of them have enjoyed. 

The Pahlavi family, on the other hand - so far, has been rerported to have lost two lives to suicide.  

Here is what Mayo Clinic says about suicide:

//www.mayoclinic.com/health/suicide/DS01062/DSECTION=causes

By Mayo Clinic staff

Suicidal thoughts have numerous causes. Most often, suicidal thoughts are the result of feeling like you can't cope when you're faced with what seems to be an overwhelming life situation. These situations could include financial problems, the death of a loved one, a relationship breakup or a debilitating illness. If you don't have hope for the future, you may mistakenly think suicide is a solution. You may experience a sort of tunnel vision, where in the middle of a crisis you believe suicide is the only way out.

There may also be a genetic link to suicide. People who complete suicide or who have suicidal thoughts or behavior are more likely to have a family history of suicide. While more research is needed to fully understand a possible genetic component, it's thought that there may be a genetic link to impulsive behavior that could lead to suicide

It is my understanding that universally a Monarch is burdened with duty as well as privilege. A monarch is considered to be the pentultimate in honor, pride, noble intent and unshakeable resolve - the creme de la creme. A monarch does not have the luxury to show weakness or waver. Against all calamity and under all circumstances, he needs to remain strong and only in doing so, does he/she keep his/her throne, title and crown. 

If the departure of Shah and Farah from Iran on that fateful January day did not establish it, the ensuing suicides of two of their children, unfortunately leaves one with no choice, but to reluctantly reach the bitter inescapable fact that "The emperor has no clothes."

afshinazad

Why are we comparing Shah with IRI? You are comparing one dictatorship with one that turned out 10 times worse. A dictatorship is a dictatorship. You cannot talk about the 1979 revolution without talking about 1953 because had it not been for the 1953, the high probability is that there would not have been a Shah to overthrow. It reached a boiling point, and at that time without knowing that it will turn into what it is today, people supported the revolution. You cant blame that on western powers , Jimmy Carter, or anyone else. If the revolution had delivered on its promises and advanced Iran as a true democracy and economic power, no one would be saying "we were a lot better off before, but...we just had no say in who governs our country, and we just had to keep silent about politics." I admit things are much worse now, but that doesnt mean Shah was good.

For everybody's sake, I hope as well

"...... that none of you ever lose a child, a father, a fiancé, or a country." 

DR.X

You must read first and understand and you shouldn't live by 1953 , 1953 till 1979 our country was middle of cold war which British and soviet and american were playing domino with us. think about 1979 our people were brain washed and western countries spend billions of dollars to support Islamist and commies and other sheet carkers to bring the modern country and government to creat a satanic regime and if the shah would of killed 1/10 of what is IRI is killing we would of been living in our own country and we had all the freedoms but not freedom of choosing politician and yet you arre talking about CIA COUP at 1953 and you are going too far back body.if you have selected or elected corupt politician would of made any diffrences in your daily life. if you are living with hate about 1953 is not a great sign of evolvement and would suggest study about mossadeg because he wasn't angel and he was another Iranian who was not honest with himself and with his own people and he was another communist in cloth of freedom. and wanted totall power and he didn't wanted to share anything.

AlexInFlorida XYZ

Then according to your argument it was not really needed to bribe street thugs, politicians, clerics, and military officials. There was no need for the CIA to do any of that or spread false propaganda against Mossadegh. So then I suppose too, that majority of people were against Mossadegh's nationalization of Iran's oil, and would have preferred to have the Shah back in order to serve Britains greedy interests and continue to allow them to profit unproportionally relative to what Iran was receving from its own oil. Maybe Shaban Bimokh should have been given the post of Prime Minister after the coup in appreciation for his efforts as a true Iranian patriot. lol

afshinazad

This article, although is titled "Death of a Prince" was not just about the passing of Ali Reza Pahlavi. In that sense it is a tragic, senseless event when anyone's life ends in such a manner. The article is drawing comparisons between the Shah and Iran's regime today and concluding, well, the Shah wasnt so bad in comparison. That is where the argument comes from, not the tragic untimely passing of a life.

According to some of the Pahlavi sympathizers, I suppose then the CIA did what was best for us, since they were so worried about Iran turning into Afghanistan or being occupied by the Soviet Union . The CIA and British knew what was good for us and had our best interests in mind, forget what the people of Iran wanted, because your crystal ball tells us Iran would have become Afghanistan. Why dont we allow foreign governments to continue to choose our dictators for us then? Forget about voting and democracy.

How is Kinzers analysis bad history?

Dr XYZ

You ask, How is Kinzers analysis bad history? Was there or was there not a CIA
and British coup in 1953 to forcefully return the shah to power? How can
you sugar coat that or make any excuse for that? 

That's agreat question, Do you really want to know the answer to that , or are you just asking for the sake of making a point?

About The Coup:

According to Kermit Roosevelt who ran the operation and General Zahedi, their accounts are very different than what Kinzer alludes to.  He implies that the USA ad UK physically brought him back to power.

Nothing can be further from the truth.  Yes Shah left the country, yes he sought backing from the USA, yes he wanted the the USA involved, but the CIA originally due to lack of resources failed in ts operation.  

It wasn't until the Shah gave the go ahead to his own supporters, who had overwhelming power ie church, bazari's, military, land owners, that mossadegh got the axe.  So the true credit goes to him and his team.  One week after Kermit had to escape due to the failed coup, then the Shahs men got into action.  Suitcases with millions of dollars from the cia were returned by General Zahedi, saying that his team had no use for it, so they didn't even really need assistance from the USA on a technical level.

The Shah years later revealed his own political strategists hand that it was a good idea to ally with the USA, so in the future he could work directly with the US and build relations wth them, and in doing so replace the british and the french from Iran in place of this new ally that was so loyal during his majesties time of need.

That is a side of the story you will never read about in kinzers book of fantasy, which portrays the USA as destroying the democratic movement in Iran, nothing could be further from the truth.

About Mossadegh:

Mossadeghs person history is definetly not one of being democratic, but filled with political deceit, coercion and manipulation.  He pursued absolute power and only wanted to replace himself with the Shah and did not wish to use his powers lawfully.. ie in fact he used them unlawfully and he acted despotically/tyranically during his short time in power... even though he acted as a populist and was loved by many for his speeches, he was no democratic leader.

Why so much self hate?

Some Iranian forget that Prince or no prince he is some ones son and some ones brother and after all he is Iranian son, whether you are fan of Royal family or not, politic topic shouldn’t be the part of death of this innocent young man and I have read so many comments which so many people sadden about his death and some are unfortunately sick minded and I should say, IRI lover or the ex- communist or the Toudeh which they have been slandering PAHLAVI family from last 32 years and have no shame that they were the ones who helped to destroy the country, which will take for decades to go back to 1979 economy and social behaviour .

Exaggeration of money that Pahlavi family have taken out of country and diagnosing family illness and even some one from us was telling yesterday that in one of those Persian programmes were mentioning that ALI REZA PAHLAVI alone had a 20 billion dollars in his account, Question is where do these people get such information, If these morons could ask themselves what was the price of oil before 1979 and what was the cost of managing country like Iran with 35 million people then and largest employer was the government, how is possible for shah would been able to take so much money, are we stupid or they are spreading hate as usual.

I haven’t born in rich family, in fact I am son of poor man who was lucky to leave the hell hole and at least I understand what are my roots are and I am proud to be one of the Iranian who doesn’t hate Pahlavi nor love them, but I respect them for what they have done to my country and if it wasn’t for REZA SHAH or MOHAMMAD REZA SHAH, none of us would been here because still we would of been living like people in AFGHANSTAN, no wonder my parents used to repeat this word again and again, BETRYAL is our  nation’s blood and mind is filled with hate to one another and they do not care about anything but their own interest, and it took me some time to understand what was my parents were talking about.

Those who love their nation and motherland would never suffer from hate of those who spread among us. Your degree and your money would not give you the wisdom of understanding your shortcoming and your actions and betrayal to your people and the country. You must learn and understand what is being good human and good neighbour and good countryman or woman, it is not a magic why western world could dominate on our country, it is their duty to serve their nation and the country and of course not every one of them are angels but they serve their country and compromise more than we could imagine. Cheers to all of you keep pounding IRI and you have my support for democratic Iran.     

bnamus

How is Kinzers analysis bad history? Was there or was there not a CIA and British coup in 1953 to forcefully return the shah to power? How can you sugar coat that or make any excuse for that? The CIA has declassified its documents which layed out the whole plan. Street thugs, politicians, and army officers were bribed to protest against Mossadegh. If the shah was so popular why was it needed to pay off mobsters to protest for him? And please explain, why did he flee the country? I cannot believe some people are apologists for an unelected CIA puppet who plotted to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister. Theres always the argument that someone makes... "yes but...the mollahs are 100 times worse"...or this one.. "ok ok, the shah wasnt perfect, but who is?" There was an earlier piece on Iranian.com that I think offers a good explanation of such a way of thought //iranian.com/main/2011/jan/why-did-he-do-it

 The Shah fled in 1979 because he had no one come to his rescue as in 1953. He did not leave out of the kindness of his heart, rather for fear of his life as popular resentment againt his regime had reached a boiling point. Had he stayed him and his family may have faced the same fate as Hoveyda or some of his Generals. And he did not leave without blood on his hands as some suggest..dont forget Jaleh square as one example. As the earlier article which i provided a link to lays out...it seems that some people have become apologists for a corrupt dictatorship just because of the mess Iran is in now. People really do have selective memory. Maybe with the mentality of such people, weather Shah supporters or IRI apologists, we really do deserve nothing more that dictatorship shoved down our throat, forget democracy.

the "benamous dynasty with genetic disorder"

Hey, if we are clever enough to detect signs of Genetic disorder in two generations of Pahlavis, Can we do the the same for Ali Khamenei dynasty?

And where is "sargord pirooz" today to keep his troops in order? 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Shah could have crush everyone

but he didnt. he didnt kill and he left.  but these fools dont know is that he could have done what Khamenei did and stay in power.

Shah was a good man who made mistakes like obama, bush, blair, ect.  but iranians are self destructive and have put our generation in a mess because of their mistakes in the past.