MOSSADEGH

Okay...

... I'll give quick replies because I have to go, but I will be back.

Whether dissolving the parliament was constitutional or not: I am not an expert on the constitution, but for the sake of the argument, let's say it wasn't.

Say you're playing chess with someone who keeps making illegal moves, yet keeps losing while you make legal ones. (For a list of the illegal moves, please refer to my previous post to Ali P re comparison of Obama and Mossadegh). Then all of a sudden, you make one illegal move and check mate your opponent. Your opponent starts crying foul that what you did was illegal when practically all he has been doing has been illegal! That's absurd! And it's not only the tit-for-tat, it's just that in an environment like that, the game is actually meaningless since (almost) nothing is done according to rules from one side anyway.

That excuse usually only comes from the mind of shahollahis and that's how you know the person behind it is one, even with all sorts claims of non-partisanship laid before making the argument! That's my 2 papasis about that one anyway.

But the second point there is that the 1906 constitution didn't come without its glitches. As you heard in Mr. Amini's response in the video/voice file Masoud earlier posted, the constitution --as an example-- states that it's the majles that appoints a prime minister, but then in another clause, states that the shah has the power to fire a minister. So, is a prime minister a minister or not, then in that case, does that contradict what the same constitution earlier set as rule, or not?

And then what would the constitution want if the parliament was, in majority, on foreign payroll? There is no clause about that, is there? The reality is, the spirit of the law wanted that --or let's say when the constitutional revolution happened, the people who created that revolution wanted that-- the foreign powers' hand be cut from meddling in the internal affairs of the country. Now if those foreign powers circumvent the law and cheat it, it doesn't mean that the law wants the country to be meddled with! In short, what we have here is just an anal interpretation of the law by the critics to prove nobody knows what point!

Princess

I'm not sure what you thought was an interpretation of Mr. Amini in that voice clip. He clearly states the clauses/articles of the constitution by their numbers and reads them. There is no interpretation there!

Ali P

I don't know if you understood anything of Mr. Ferdows's message, but the one thing I understood was that he claims someone has insulted the Shah's mother on this thread. I read all the messages again, and the only thing I saw was a reference to his sister as a not-so-good-woman (to put it mildly!), but then that's a true statement, isn't it?? : )

And since Mr. Moradi will not address me directly, I won't either, but...

- Ghavam wasn't a "nokar-e ingilisa" as they used to put it, but in the period when he was re-appointed, it was to the Brit's benefit that he take the job. I think this is what Masoud was saying in his post. The fact that there's a claim that he didn't take the job because of illness can actually be refuted by the point that he was actually smarter than that -- he probably saw that he didn't have any chance, that the people were on the side of Mossadegh, plus he wouldn't want to risk being called a "nokar-e ingilsa"! Basically -- lame excuse to say he was "ill".

- The crowd that took to the streets on 30 Tir was not the same as the one that did on 28 Mordad. The first was made up of mostly regular people (true, some of the 28 Mordad crowd was mixed with the one on 30 Tir, namely Kashani's people), but the 28 Mordad crowd was mostly made up of paid thugs. So it's very dishonest to say the same crowd that brought Mossadegh back to his seat kicked him out of it.

- If the point of the article is that "violence doesn't pay and everything should be done peacefully, through law" (which is an interpretation some seemed to have of this article), and which I doubt wholeheartedly this article ultimately wants to say -- I think history has proved more than once that such premise is completely false. Look at France, the US, just almost anywhere. In fact, it's the opposite that holds true: It's hard to find one place on earth where the rule of law/democracy wasn't made with (often) violent sacrifice from the people.

Regards to all.
(and so much for a short reply!)

جناب سیروس مرادی گرامی

از شما برای مقاله تحلیلی جالب و خواندنیتان و نیز برای توضیحات تکمیلیتان سپاسگزارم. از دیدگاه من این موضوع که نام واقعه 30 تیر را  (و نیز دیگر وقایع را) چه میگذاریم و چگونه آنرا طبقه بندی میکنیم حائز هیچگونه اهمیتی نیست و حال آنکه نتیجه بر آمده از آن بسیار اهمیت دارد. تحلیل شما از بنیان گذاری قانون شکنی در 30 تیر 1331 بسیار درست است ولی اینکه آیا میشود آنرا کودتا نامید کمی جای بحث دارد چون هیچگونه نهاد رسمی از درون سیستم ظاهرا درآن جریان نقشی نداشت و حال آنکه حزب توده با بهره برداری از شرایط بد اقتصادی در بوجود آوردن و گسترش هرج و مرج بسیار موثر بود. همانگونه که شما اشاره کردید، مسلما اگر قوام السلطنه میتوانست با قاطعیت با آن برخورد کند تاریخ بگونه دیگری رقم میخورد اما بیماری و ضعف جسمی او اجازه چنین کاری نمیداد و مخالفان نیز از این موضوع بخوبی آگاه بودند.

Dear Mr. Kazemzadeh,

I think you misunderstood part of my earlier post. I never stated that Mr. Forouhar used foul language about Dr. Mosadegh. and as far as Dr. Hussein Fatemi,  the link to Mr. Meftah's book that I provided earlier would give you some information in that regard and you can also read a little on this matter in the interview of Mr. Amir-Khosrow Ghasemlou Afshar (in the first transcript and I think in other parts too). The point here, is not to sell falsified stories about late Dr. Fatemi or anyone else but to discover the truth and imunize ourselves against false heroes which could be taken advantage of by hostile entities in order to creat more divisions, unneccessary and unjustified differences and bitterness among Iranians.

Warm regards

دموکراسی یا هرج و مرج ؟

کلیشه های قدیمی

جناب آقای کاظم زاده از اظهار نظراتی که خطاب به بنده روز جمعه 22 ژوئیه فرموده اید خیلی ممنونم. خیلی خوشحالم که همه  اقدامات شخصیت های سیاسی تاریخی را قابل نقد و بررسی دانسته و آنها را تابو نمیدانید. با اینحال فکر میکنم در چند زمینه اختلاف عقیده داریم. اولاً دموکراسی در هر کشوری را باید با توجه به ظرفیتهای آن کشور و شرایط تاریخی سنجید . بنده فکر میکنم دموکراسی نیم بند کشورمان در فاصله سالهای 1320 تا 32 واقعاً یک سرو گردن از همه کشورهای همسایه بالاتر بود. در دهه 1940 و اوایل 1950 در بین کشورهای آسیائی تنها ژاپن دارای دموکراسی قابل قیاس با ایران بوده است. خواهش میکنم صبر کنید توضیح دهم. هم اکنون کارکرد مجالس این دوره تاریخی به ویژه مجالس 16 و 17 در دسترس همگان است و این نشان دهنده تعمیق دموکراسی در ایران در آن سالهاست. باز تاکید میکنم که این دموکراسی از دموکراسی ایده آل فرسنگ ها دور بود با اینحال برای کشور ما که جز دوره خیلی کوتاهی بعد از پیروزی مشروطیت تجربه دیگری در این زمینه نداشت پیروزی بزرگی بوده است. اتفاقاً نمایندگان عضو جبهه ملی نقش بزرگی در این موفقیت و تحقق دموکراسی در کشورمان داشتند که باعث افتخار است. بنده هیچگاه شخص و یا نهاد و حزب خاصی را مسئول و مدیر این دموکراسی معرفی نکردم. به نظرم این موفقیت با همکاری همه اقشار مردم و احزاب ، رسانه ها و محمدرضا شاه صورت گرفت. بازهم تاکید میکنم که رفتار  محمد رضا شاه در فاصله سالهای 1320 تا 32 را نمیتوان با رفتار و منش جرج ششم پادشاه انگلیس که چهار صد سال دمکراسی را پشت سر داشت مقایسه کنیم. محمدرضا شاه در حد خود در این فاصله تا حدود زیادی رفتار پادشاه مشروطه را داشت. در وقایع آذربایجان در کنار سیاستمداران کار کشته ای نظیر قوام و همچنین نمایندگان مجلس نقش خود را به خوبی ایفاء کرد. محمد رضا در این فاصله پادشاه محبوبی بود.به نظر میرسد که تخصص شما بیشتر مسائل تاریخی است. بنده تحصیلاتم در حوزه روابط بین الملل است و تاثیرات بین المللی جریان امور و نقش تاریخی و بین المللی افراد برایم مهمتر است.  اینجانب معتقدم که بنا بر هر تعریفی از کودتا داشته باشیم، حادثه 30 تیر سال 31 کودتایی بود با شرکت اکثریت نخبگان سیاسی  و برخی احزاب که دارای تشکیلاتی نظیر پیراهن قهوه ایی های نازی بودند بر ضد نظام دموکرات نوپای ایران. دکتر مصدق امتیازاتی را که در مذاکرات سیاسی به دست نیاورده بود با باج خواهی سیاسی و کشاندن چاقو کشان  و چماق داران احزاب طرفدار خود به خیابان به دست آورد. این معنی دقیق کودتا است. به این ترتیب معیار و ارزشی جا افتاد که می توان با توسل به تظاهرات خیابانی امتیاز به دست آورد و مجلس و دولت و شاه را به هیچ شمرد. چیزی که بعد ها تبدیل به سنت اصلی صحنه سیاسی ایران شد. وقایع 22 بهمن سال 1357 ادامه روند خشونتی بود که دکتر مصدق در 30 تیر سال 1331 شروع کرد. صحبتی هم از قوام کرده بودید که روز 25 تیرماه 1331 بعد از استعفای مصدق ، شاه قانوناً با مشورت مجلس به نخست وزیری بر گزیده بود. جنابعالی ایشان را وابسته به انگلیس میدانید. یادمان باشد که آخرین باری که این وابسته  به انگلیس نخست وزیر بود در سال 1325 توانست با حسن سیاست خود غائله آذربایجان را با موفقیت حل کند. قوام السطنه یک بازیگر سیاسی بزرگ بود. ایشان اولین کسی بود که در ایران قدرت نوظهور آمریکا را به خوبی تشخیص داد. ایشان اولین کسی بود درایران که فهمید ارباب اصلی نیروهای چپ مسکو است و میتوان بالا سر همه این احزاب به راحتی با کرملین کنار آمد. این عنوان وابسته به انگلیس و آمریکا هم از اصطلاحات قدیمی است که بیشتر مورد استفاده ناسیونالیست های ایرانی است. اگر یک ایرانی مثلاً از روش زندگی آمریکای ها خوشش آمده و عضو انجمن ایران و آمریکا بوده و دوست داشته باشد تحصیلاتش را در دانشگاه های آمریکایی انگلیسی بگذراند در قاوموس این افراد به وی می گویند " وابسته انگلیس و یا آمریکا" قوام یک  فئودال  پولدار و اشراف منش بود. ایشان در عین حال وطن پرست عملی هم بودند. از آن آدم هایی نبودند که تسلیم شعار  بشوند. قوام سیاستمدار بزرگی در سطح بین المللی بود. حتی در مصاحبه ای که یک خبرنگار ایرانی با ویلی برانت صدراعظم آلمان انجام داده بود، برانت به درایت و کارآمدی قوام اشاره داشتند. این عنوان مرتبط و یا Connetionکه شما می گوئیدYou FALSELY state that Qavam was not connected to the Britishچه معنی دارد.  چون واژه " Connection" معنای منفی در فارسی دارد و همیشه متضمن نوعی ارتباط ارباب رعیتی است به نظر میرسد آقای کریم زادگان بیشتر در پی اثبات نوکری قوام برای انگلیسی هاست که موضوعی قدیمی و از مد افتاده است. در جهان امروز همه سیاستمداران به نوعی به هم وابسته و با هم ارتباط دارند. هم اکنون روسیه خیلی مایل است که اوباما مجدداً به ریاست جمهوری آمریکا انتخاب شود. آیا می توان نتیجه گرفت اوباما وابسته به روسهاست؟ تاسف من از اینه که چرا قوام روز 30 تیر پایداری نکرد. هیچ سیاستمداری نبابد مرعوب تظاهرات خیابانی شده و صحنه را ترک کند. گمانم ضعف قوای جسمانی باعث عقب نشینی ایشان گردید. به هر حال به قول مدریتور های جلسات بحث و دبیت و میز گرد ، صحنه برای ادامه گفتگو باز است.بنده هنوز فکر میکنم که حادثه 30 تیر کودتایی بود با شرکت طیف وسیعی از سیاستمداران احساساتی که بیشتر به دنبال کسب فوری قدرت از کف خیابانها بودند و برنامه بلند مدتی نداشتند.به زعم شما قوام انگلیسی بود و میخواست نفت ایران را به امپریالیست ها بدهد. با کودتای 30 تیر نتیجه زیاد فرقی نکرد، درست 2 سال بعد این کار اتفاق افتاد.

MK Jan Your the one claiming Mossadegh was Democratically electe

MK Jan Your the one claiming Mossadegh was Democratically elected ...

I don't: 

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

Besides It's Not Our fault if you folks played against the rules and Lost ... 

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDplfsZxrbg

;0)

I don't even claim to be a Democrat YOU DO !

I claim very much like British Irish Political thinker Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) that a Society deserves the type of government it can afford:

Mini Lecture on the ideas of Edmund Burke: 

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhnyTo4oJv8

Clearly the Iranians of 1953 and 1979 proved too immature to afford and maintain a democratic one:

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

I would like to believe the Iranians of 2011 are more mature than their peers ...

BELLA CIAO: Shahbanou Farah Warmly Greeted by Green Supporters in Paris

But that's up to them to prove it.

The best I can do is suggest an acceptable alternative:

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy

But with a New Set of Rules:

ROYAL FORUM: Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican

Others are free to suggest a Jomhurykhah Alternative of their Choice.

But that has never been my cup of tea. 

My Humble Opinion,

DK

PS: Even In a Fully Accountable Constitutional Monarchy the Head of State that is the Monarch is considered as Sacred and Immune to attacks or physical threat under the Treason Act of 1848:

1981 - Trooping the Colour -Queen Shot At (Video)

Marcus Simon Sarjeant was sentenced him to five years' imprisonment for attempt on the Life of the Queen. In older Times This fellow would have been Tortured, Torn Apart or Decapitated for Treason. Now this is what happens in a country with a long tradition of Constitutionalism behind it. Iran at the time of the so called Coup had barely 50 years of a Constitutionalist history behind it ( see Above Blog 'The Past is a Foreign Country" for reference) too short a time for a society to grasp and implement it to the fullest and acceptable terms.

Cyrus Amir-Mokri on Pros and Cons of 1906 Constitution

If our society couldn't even properly handle the set of rules that define a Constitutional Monarchy which in itself was a progress compared to 25 centuries of Absolutism, I don't see how they could have handled a Democratic Republic any better.

Recommended Blogs:

REVOLUTION DEMYSTIFIED: Truth and Lies Surrounding the French Revolution

Machiavelli's "The Prince" and the "Art" of Governing

I have news

While we are rehashing events of 60 year ago IRI is killing people right now. And US is about to arm and send in the PMOI as a pretext to start the bombing! Hey I do not minimize Dr Mossadegh nor do I deny the contributions of the Shah. But for good or evil they are both LONG gone! I admit there are people here on all "sides"  whom I find "good" people. With real love of Iran and her history. Parham; DK and MG are some examples. But the coup DID happen and the Shah was overthrown. We can learn from the past but not change it. We will never know what would have happened if the coup did not happen or failed. Right now plans for future of Iran are being drawn in the White House and AIPAC. Do we want this or do we want to have a say in it?

More JM member executed by the Shah after the coup

2.3. Ayoub Ghassemi :

 ۱- ابوالفضل قاسمی، عضو هیات اجرائیه و شورای مرکزی ‌جبهه ملی‌ و دبیر کل حزب ایران بود که خود، برای آرمان های نهضت ملی‌، سال ها زندان های شاه وخمینی را تحمل کرد وعلیرغم پیری و بیماری کوچکترین ضعفی از خود در مبارزه نشان نداد. برادرش، ایوب قاسمی در ۲۸ مرداد۱۳۳۲ و مرتضی‌ قاسمی در خرداد ۱۳۶۰، که هردو از رهبران جبهه ملی‌ شهرستان درگز بودند، تیرباران شدند.

On Dr. Fatemi (and where Behnood is wrong)

Dariush jaan,

1. Dr. Fatemi called the Shah a "dozd." It is either true or false. We believe this to be true. Should a person be executed for calling the Shah a "thieve"?  Certainly Reza Shah was a thieve.  I am sure you agree that Reza Shah stole the property of soooooooo many people.

In YOUR opinion, executing a person for calling the Shah a thieve is just, would you also agree that fundamentalists like Khalkhali were just to kill about 500 (mostly monarchists) right after the revolution for actually murdering and torturing human beings? Which is a bigger problem calling a person "thieve" (and in our opinion a true charge), or killing and torturing soooooo many others?

2. Behnoud is actually wrong. Many other JM members were killed by the monarchists after the coup. Among the more famous are Karimpour Shirazi and Col. Sakhaee.

2.1. On the killing of col. Sakhaee:

//sheydamosadegh.blogsky.com/1389/01/25/post-2/

2.2. on the killing of Karimpour Shirazi:

//iranian.com/main/news/2011/03/26-5

Massoud Behnoud on Hossein Fatemi's Attacks on Shah in Media '53

Veteran Iranian journalist Masoud Behnoud discusses with BBC Persian's Enayat Fani on media publications related to 19 August 1953 coup d'etat including Mossadegh's Foreign Minister Hossein Fatemi's Slandering article in "Bakhtar Emrooz" against the Shah which prompted his arrest for treason and subsequent execution:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxSRSusy6vw

Related Blog:

Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"? by DK

Dear Sohrab

Sohrab jaan,

You wrote: 

SF: As for late Dr. Fatemi, you are right. He was one of the most foul mothed people around Dr. Mosadegh (appart from Mr. Daryush Forouhar) to whom even late Dr. Mosadegh himself was not imune according to some members of foreign affairs including Dr. Fatemi's driver.

MK: I would  be most grateful if you could provide any evidence on either your assertion supporing Ali's assertion and/or your assertion that Forouhar used foul language about Dr. Mossadegh.  I look forward to reading the evidence you present.

Best,

Masoud

In response to Ali P

Dear Ali P,

The answer to your question is that late Dr. Mosadegh had no real clear and long term plan for proper conclusion to his challenge to British government and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This is the claim made by one of the senior members of late Dr. Mosadegh's diplomatic team who accompanied him in hague international court. Mr. Abdulhossein Meftah, in part of his book, "The Truth Has No Colour", has given extensive account of his conversation with Dr. Mosadegh over this issue in which he expresses his own surprise to late Mosadegh for lack of such proper plan. This book was not granted a permission to publish before the Islamic revolution but later, it was published in Germany. The translation to English has been carried out by his son Bojang Meftah.

Abdulhussein Meftah was a career diplomat in ministry of foreign affairs and had worked under different administrations. During the primiership of late Dr. Mosadegh, he was assistant to late Dr. Hussein Fatemi and acted as highest authority in the ministry  in his absense. There is a picture of Dr. Mosadegh and Dr. Fatemi while in Hague International Court and Mr. Meftah can be seen in that picture sitting right behind Dr. Mosadegh. I will add some excerpts of his book a bit further but here I like to add a couple of things about Dr. Mosadegh's activities which are evident without needing any explaination. Late Dr. Mosadegh never joined any political party. He became a member and leader of Jebhe Melli as an individual, not a party member. In those days, Jebhe Melli was a political front consisting of different parties and organizations and many individual members who had no affiliation with any political party.

Appointment of late Dr. Mosadegh to leadership of Jebhe Melli did not come about in any kind of formal democratic procedure or convention. In fact Jebhe Melli was suggested and formed by a group of people who wanted to take advantage of Dr. Mosadegh's exceptional ability to debate over different issues especially oil in order to implement certain agendas. While he enjoyed being in spotlight very much, Dr. Mosadegh never shared all that he had in his mind with those surrounding him. An example is coming from late Dr. Sanjabi who has given his account (in his memoirs) of ordering to bring the Pahlavi statues down by Dr. Mosadegh without discussing with others or even considering their oppositon to such action. Other examples are given by Mr. Meftah in his book in regards to relations between Dr. Mosadegh and his cabinet ministers, Dr. Hussein Fatemi and others. There are many more incidents which is beyond the scope this short writing and is not my intention to get into.

I personally refuse to get invovled in any kind of exchange when logic and reasoning is misrepresented by a group of people who can never appreciate that there are other sides, views and evidences to the historic events which may not easily fit to their inherited second hand cliche interpretations. As seen here, people, instead of reasoning, can even resort to trash talking about mother of someone (while calling it logic at the same time) just to feel good! One common habit that I have seen repeatedly among some debaters is that, they just ask for proof but when presented, they do not see it or decide to ignore or deny it! To these people, any proof should come from the sources that they agree with otherwise it will not be acceptable! I must admire Mr. Moradi for bravely stating his points of view regarding the events which have haunted our nation for a very long time and casted their shadows through-out the history of our nation till this day. In the meantime, I agree with Mr. Kazemzadeh about misinterpreting of the 30th of Tir event as a "coup" agaisnt the system and in fact, there are other points that I would not agree with Mr. Moradi but that will have no bearing on my appreciation for his interesting and honest analysis and view points.

Before ading the excerpts from Mr. Meftah's book (copied from a pdf version), I also like to mention that late Dr. Mosadegh, was a great and patriotic Iranian who, as clearly stated by Mr. Moradi in his essay, tried to help the cause of our nation's progress in the best of his ability and in his own cpacity. He was not a perfect human being and although his bravery in challenging British became a source of inspiration for some others but his poor planning and miscalculations in the process to bring such challenge to proper conclusion was far from heroic. The result was long term damage to Iran's young democracy by putting a week, unprepared and poor nation face to face with superpowers of those days and creating internal chaos without thinking it through. Here are the excerpts from "The Truth Has No Colour" by Mr. Abdulhussein Meftah:

"Here I feel it necessary to go into details of what passed between
Dr. Mossadegh and I, in the Palace Hotel at The Hague on 5th
February 1956, since I believe my interview with him reveals a page
of the history of what was going on behind the scenes and why I went
to The Hague to have an interview with Dr. Mossadegh.
A good number of my compatriots who were in Hamburg during
my two years stay as Consul General (1950-1952), knew about my
effort to introduce to the German public, by publishing a weekly
bulletin, my country’s problems and the struggle to pull her out of
the miseries created for her just because Iran had oil!
Each number of the bulletin had an article written by me, in
which I explained our problems and the injustice done by the Anglo-
Iranian Oil Company. My writings were not as strong as it has been
explained by Elwell Sutton, in his book, “Persian Oil”. Strangely my
patriotic articles were disliked by our Legation in Köln. Our
Minister’s pretext was that my articles did not please the British
Authorities!

Apart from the articles, I made myself a traveling Public Relation
person. Traveling around and lecturing German Youth and
Journalists on our problems and the way Iran was treated by the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company during fifty years of acquiring its
concession!

In the midst of such struggle and effort the most unpleasant and
discouraging news reached me from Tehran concerning deep
differences between the Shah and Dr. Mossadegh.
At the same time news reached Hamburg that the British
government had referred the Oil Dispute to the International Court
of Arbitration in The Hague, and that Dr. Mossadegh was proceeding
to The Hague to question and oppose the competence of the
International Court in interfering in a case which is solely an Iranian
National Affair.

I was eagerly awaiting his arrival in The Hague so that I could go
there and have an interview with him, to make him realize the harm
the differences between him and the Shah would cause his plan and
effort for Nationalization of our Oil.

It was 7th June 1952 that Tehran Radio announced the departure
of Dr. Mossadegh to The Hague. Next day I left Hamburg for The
Hague and attended the proceedings of the Court, particularly the
defense of Professor M. Henri Rolan which was highly appreciated
by listeners. The Courts proceedings lasted till 11th June. When the

Court’s proceedings were over, I found the time was ripe to have my
interview with Dr. Mossadegh. I managed through his son, Dr.
Gholam Mossadegh, to obtain an appointment for 12.45 on 12th June.

At the appointed time, I entered his apartment in the Palace Hotel.
He received me warmly and we sat facing each other. I thanked him
for receiving me and started with these words: “As you know, I have
been trying to attract German public opinion and sympathy towards
your patriotic struggle and the country’s national desire, through the
publication of a weekly bulletin, and also by giving conferences. But I
regret to say that certain rumors leaking out from Tehran which is
reflected in European papers, is not only hampering my activities, it
strongly harms your effort in nationalizing the oil.”

Mossadegh inquired, “What news & and rumors?”
I replied, “ The first strange and harmful news in Tehran’s papers
was that you have said to the members of Parliament, who were
invited to your home, that you thought the British would submit to
your plan after two or three months, therefore you did not draw a
proper plan to fight them, and you asked the Parliament members
present at your home, to gather together to draw up a plan!”
Dr. Mossadegh said, “I told the truth”.

I replied, “Truly speaking when I read the news I felt surprised
and disappointed, because I could not allow myself to believe that a
statesman such as your Excellency would ever start such an
important campaign without preparing a plan beforehand,
particularly at a time when this very meager income from oil helped
the country to stand on its feet. Apart from that, you can see for
yourself that even now, I mean 7 years after the war; Britain’s living
on a very strong ration system and bearing all her hardship for the
sake of her financial and economic recovery. What made your
Excellency think or imagine that a country which bore or supported
all the miseries and sufferings of the war, while conniving her
resistance, was going to surrender to us for the sake of a few barrels
of oil? I was sure that you had an economic plan, already prepared to
replace and compensate for the loss of oil income, as the consequence
of Nationalization, so that the government could bear the burden of
the most difficult undertaking to which they committed themselves.
And at the same time give a chance to the people to occupy
themselves in usual work. In my opinion even now, which is very is
very late, if we cut short the losses, it will be the beginning of a gain. I
therefore suggest you employ the army, which at present has nothing
to do (and considering the present difficult condition, is a burden on
the country) on the field to help the peasants, so that at least the daily
bread of the masses could be secured; and meanwhile, the world
could watch that your government is seriously struggling to achieve
its aim. The struggle surly would attract the sympathy and
admiration of friend and foe.”

Dr. Mossadegh liked my suggestion, but said, “His Majesty would
not like us to touch the army”.
I said “All right if His Majesty dislikes or disapproves of using the
help of the army in such an important struggle, you should
immediately organize a labour force and employ it on the field.”
Dr. Mossadegh inquired how a labour force should be organized. I
having in mind the system of German Arbeitsdienst, explained, how
it should be organized and recruited. Dr. Mossadegh took note of the
subject.

Dr. Mossadegh liked my suggestion, but said, “His Majesty would
not like us to touch the army”.
I said “All right if His Majesty dislikes or disapproves of using the
help of the army in such an important struggle, you should
immediately organize a labour force and employ it on the field.”
Dr. Mossadegh inquired how a labour force should be organized. I
having in mind the system of German Arbeitsdienst, explained, how
it should be organized and recruited. Dr. Mossadegh took note of the
subject.

Dr. Mossadegh said, “I do not know anything about that case.
Please tell me what & how it happened”.
I explained the case as the late Soheili, the Foreign Minister of the
time related to me: “England and Russia were not willing for
Mohammad Reza Shah to take his father’s place. They preferred
that, before any definite decision taken, a Regent should be
appointed. They contacted our Ambassador in Moscow, Mr. Saed
first, who refused with the excuse that Mr. M. A. Foroughi, the Prime
Minister of the time, due to his popularity, would be a better fit for
that task. They were rebuffed strongly by M. A. Foroughi. The day
before the appointed the Shah’s proclamation, Bullard the British
Ambassador, and the Russian Ambassador, Smirnov, went together
to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and said: “our governments are
informed that tomorrow the Crown Prince is going to Parliament to
take the oath and be proclaimed Shah of Iran. We are here to inform
you that our governments will not recognize the Reign of the Crown
Prince.”

Soheili replied that according to the agreement signed between
Iran and the allies, they had no right to interfere in our internal
affairs, particularly in our Home Affairs, and this is clearly an
internal affair.”

Bullard who was the speaker of the two, said, “We are only
instructed to inform you of our government’s decision.” Soheili then
asked them, they better meet the Prime Minister”. Soheili got up and
proceeded to the upper floor, where Foroughi had his office, and told
him the purpose of their visit and asked him to receive them.
Foroughi received them. Bullard repeated his message in a more
vehement tone and, without listening to Foroughi’s objections, that
this decision was contrary to the signed agreement between the three
powers, they left his office.

Foroughi was very much disturbed and remained seated, keeping his
head between his hands. After a while he got up and left for the
Palace. When he had the audience with the Crown Prince he was in a
worried mood. The Crown Prince was probably indirectly informed
of the Anglo-Russian decision, immediately upon receiving Foroughi
and observing his disturbed state, said, “You have come to tell me
that they are not going to recognize my reign? If you really think it in
the best interest of the country, it would be better to stop tomorrow’s
ceremony”
Foroughi had replied, “They came to inform me of their
government’s decision, but we will carry on our decision according to
The plan.

My last sentence was not quite finished when Dr. Mossadegh lost
control, and said in a loud voice, “Mr. Meftah, my difficulty is that,
there are not even two of twelve members of my Cabinet in
agreement. What can I do?”

*********
"On the other hand, the behavior of Dr. Mossadegh in keeping the
leadership of National Front, in particular Fatemi, uninformed of his
conversations with Henderson on the oil question, created strong
dissatisfaction among them."

**************************
"More proof that Dr. Mossadegh was keeping the National Front
and the Parliament uninformed of his activities about the oil
question. The same applied to our International Relations. After
Fatemi’s departure for Hamburg for medical treatment, the Foreign
Committee of the Parliament called for me to appear before the
Committee. When they sat to work, its first item was to question me
about state of our International Relations.

Messers Razavi and Parsa, both members of National Front,
criticized strongly the Foreign Ministry strongly for not keeping the
Parliament informed of the state of country’s International
Relations, and said, that Parliament did not know what was going on,
particularly about the oil affair. “It was your duty to come and
inform the Parliament about it,” Appearing before the Committee, I
was seated between Doctor Fakher and Mr. Zolfaghari. The later
remarked that their attack made me uncomfortable, and being
acquainted with my character and temper, kept touching my knees
as a sign to keep me quiet. I took their attacks, though unjust and
unfair. I did not take any notice of Zolfaghari’s advice, but said, “I
can not understand why you gentlemen are attacking me or the
Foreign Office. You both are members of National Front, why not go
to the Prime Minister, your leader, and ask him? Your criticisms are
totally unjust.” In a stronger voice, Razavi continued his attack and
said, “No that is not right. You have a duty to inform Parliament and
that behavior of yours is considered as failing in your duties.”
The last four words, failing in your duty” made me very angry, I
replied, “The foreign Office itself was not aware of the country’s
Foreign Relations, therefore how I could inform the Parliament?”
Razavi asked, since when has the Ministry been kept uninformed
about the county’s International Relation.” I replied, “Since
Razmara, [Previous Prime Minister], Foreign Office, has been kept
out of Foreign Relations, therefore we can not inform the Parliament
of what we are not informed ourselves.”

In the afternoon of the same day, Dr. Mossadegh called me and
criticized my way of speaking at the committee. I asked Him, if what
I said was not true? He confirmed my opinion, but said that I should
not have spoken so frankly! I said, I thought it my duty to defend my
Ministry."

*******************

As for late Dr. Fatemi, you are right. He was one of the most foul mothed people around Dr. Mosadegh (appart from Mr. Daryush Forouhar) to whom even late Dr. Mosadegh himself was not imune according to some members of foreign affairs including Dr. Fatemi's driver.

Princess jaan

Dear Princess,

You are most welcomed.

Best regards,

Masoud

P.S. Just wanted to thank YOU for your wonderful essays and photos from Afghanistan.  I learned from you and enjoyed reading them.

Dear Masoud

Thank you!

I very much enjoyed the link. I have a lot of respect Mr Amini's views especially on this topic. But you do realise that as much I appreciate his views, it remains an opinion rather than a fact. There are others out there who dispute Mr Amini's interpretation of law and the situation. 

I would now really appreciate it if the "other camp" would try to put arguments forward with the same civility and eloquence. 

Parham, I also look forward to reading your take on this. 

Thank you again for bringing it back to the real topic at hand. I shall now step back again and let the more knowledgeable amongst us continue.

Regards,

P 

Dear Ali

Ali jaan,

You wrote:

"4) His secretary of State and right hand, Dr. Fatemi was openly calling for the execution of all royal family members. Was this the position of his cabinet? The prime minister is faithful to the Shah and the vice premier is calling for his execution  ! "

MK: Could you please provide any document where you read this?  As far as I am aware, this is not true.   

Thanks

Dear Parham,

Please do help and provide your answer.  I have been busy with other things including the posts on other issue.

Best,

Masoud

PJ,

Thanks.

Best,

Masoud

Dear Princess

Dear Princess,

There is a debate on whether Dr. Mossadegh had the right to dissolve the Parliament. There is also a debate on whether in the absence of the Parliament, the Shah had the legal authority to dismiss the prime minister. In this link, Mohammad Amini does a great job answering these questions.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQ_0ebaN4M

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards,

Masoud

For Ali P on what Dr. Mossadegh and Dr. Fatemi Did on 28 Mordad

Ali jaan,

I had asked a similar question from a top member of JM and here is his response:

Dear Masoud:
> 
> There was a lot of talks and rumor was running around at that time. I was 
> at Mordad 25th. Baharstan demonstration and detail was printed in press,
> there  was no talk about republic issue, with all three speakers: Shaygan,
> Fatemi and  zirakzadeh, last two with firey speaches.
> 
> In the streets in demonstrators from Nirroye sevvom chanted: "Johouri, 
> Jomhori", last few days of Niroye sevom formal paper slogan at the bottom of
> the  paper was defending "Jomhouri". After the coup Maleki group accused Dr.
> Khonji  who was running the Neyroye sevom paper of wrong slogan for the time
> and he  denied to be the initiator. Read Khaterate Massoud Hejazi (Rooidadha va
> Davari),  talks about it.
> Dehkhoda was talked to be "head of Shoraye Saltant" in absence of Shah, as 
> required by the Ghanoone asasi. the same as they assigned "...Tehrani" at
> the  end of Shah time and with the pressure of Khomeini he did not accept it.
> Talking  of his presidency was also around however no formal talk about it.
> Toudeh party  also was talking about "Jomhouri Democratic".
> 

> 
> اطلاعات مربوط به دکتر فاطمي  و جمهوري را  در موثق ترين
> شکلي در  کتاب "قلم و سیاست" نوشته زنده يادمحمدعلي سفري
> میتوانید پیدا کنید. سفری خود  خبرنگار باختر امروز بود و
>  مورد اعتماد همه . صفحه 858   
> در آن میخوانید که فراکسيون نهضت ملي دنبال  طرحي براي
> تشکيل شورايعالي سلطنتي  که  اعضاي شورا را انتخاب کنند بود
>  و اضافه کردند که "فعلآ مذاکرات در بازه تعیین اعضای 
> شورا و برقراری شورا است و مساله تغییر رژیم وبرقراری رژیم
>  جمهوری مورد تآئید  مقامات صلاحیتدار قرار نگرفت". سفری
> اضافه میکند که " اعلام چنین مطلبی با آخرین  سخنان دکتر
> فاطمی در کنفرانس مطبوعاتی همین روز که "موضوع رژیم
> جمهوری الان مورد  بحث دولت نیست" هماهنگی دارد". باز سفری
> مینویسد این صرفا بدلیل پافشاری مصدق بود  از اینکه مسآله "
> جمهوری" از سوی مقامات مملکتی و روزنامه های وابسته بدولت
>  عنوان  نشود. در حالیکه تمام آثار وشواهد حاکی از این
> بود که تغییر رژیم از سلطنتی به  جمهوری خواست مردم و مورد
> توافق اکثریت سران مملکتی است. سفری از دهخدا که از منزل
>  دکتر مصدق بیرون میامیده میپرسد که صحبت در باره چه بود
> و او میگوید "احوالپرسی".  
> و بالاخره آخرین صحبت هایش را سفری با دکتر  فاطمی
> مینویسد که مفهومش این است که ما نبایست چیزی بنویسیم. من نیستم
>  که تصمیم  میگیرم. بالاخره" مآیوس نباش، انشاالله موفق 
> میشویم".
> 

GREAT post Masoud, as usual!

Although, I may be a little late on this, I must say that Masoud's assessment is right on the target especially when he writes about the death of Stalin, chaos in Kremlin and the timing of the COUP.     

Isn’t this ironic that a democratic figure like Mossadegh would have been saved by one of the most authoritarian dictators like Stalin???!!!

In this world, a German proverb says, that there is no room for the weak!   And that is what was happening in Iran and that is what Mossadegh wanted to stop and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi didn’t…not only that, but he  wanted it to continue, and, unfortunately, he succeeded prolonging the “Pahlavi Criminal Enterprise” with the help of his, even, corrupter family and a group of unprincipled unscrupulous individuals whose only goal was to embezzle/steal money and betrayal of their country was of no consequence, as a result we ended up with Khomeini, regaining our independence but not our freedom from Khomeini and Khomeinism.

Again THANKS Masoud! 

The answer is actually very easy

I have a good answer for that, but since the question was asked of Masoud, I will let Masoud reply. Let's see what he says.

 Dear Masoud,  

Dear Masoud,

I appreciate you taking the time to address my comment. Let me start by reiterating how much I respect and enjoy your contributions. I personally have learned a lot from you over the years.

Let me also say, I am no historian and am not dumb to debate the facts of history, particularly this episode of our history, with you. However, I thought it might be useful to let you know how these discussions look to some us who follow them regularly.

The way I, as someone who has read a book or two and followed few discussions on this particular period of our history, see it certain things regarding this particular episode of our history are indisputably proven; things such at the involvement of the Brits and the Americans, or the fact that some Iranians collaborated with them. There are of course people who even dispute these facts, but I don’t care because as you say they have to yet back their claims with real evidence. The are also a number of registered historical facts like dates and places for events such the dissolution of the parliament, Shah’s escape, people getting out on the streets etc. which again are indisputable as facts.

Then there is the question of motivations and goals behind the actions by all parties involved, which are probably more open to interpretation and subject to biases.

On top of all this, however, to go back to your analogy of there not being such a thing as a “half-pregnant”, there is the question of the legality of certain moves under the then constitution. Again, as a somewhat impartial reader of history, I have to yet see a convincing argument put forward by anybody for the legality of the dissolution of the parliament by Dr Mossadegh.

This particular point, is what Mr Moradi is using to back up the main thesis in his article, which is not about Dr Mossadegh per se, but as I said my previous comment about a culture of disrespect for the rule of law and its consequences for our nation. I would agree with you that probably the use of the term “coup” is rather unfortunate and unnecessarily provocative, but I wish you had chosen to address the main thesis of this article instead of going on the defensive about Dr Mossadegh, whose achievements speak volumes for themselves regardless of how much he is criticised and discussed. I happen to believe that main thesis of this article is extremely valid and would have wished to see a healthier debate about it.

Over the years of following these discussions, unfortunately a certain predictability and staleness is noticeable, where the same people keep showing up in every related discussion thread, to repeat the same points over and over gain without anybody making an effort to introduce a new perspective. To an outsider, it looks more like settling scores, and ‘putting people in their place’,rather than contributing to a debate. 

In my humble opinion Dr Mossadegh does not need a “defence team”. He already has a very special place in the heart of the majority of the Iranians and what he managed to achieve for Iran and the Iranians speak for themselves, and will do so for centuries to come. 

Thank you!

Warm regards,

Princess

What he wanted to do

It's actually very simple. He wanted to break the back of the Brits so they'd bow to his/Iranian people's terms for the oil. If the Brits/Americans hadn't staged a coup, they would have had to do so. As simple as that. That's, in fact, why they staged a coup.

As for the form of government, he probably would have waited for the Shah to return and made him sit in his place as a king only (and not as a ruler). The Shah couldn't have done more. He was in a check/mate situation. I honestly doubt that Mossadegh would have declared a republic.

As to your analogy to Obama's administration, Obama doesn't have most of the House of Representatives and Senate (there was no senate at the time of Mossadegh, I'm just transposing for the sake of the example) on British (or Russian or Chinese or Mexican...) payroll. Obama doesn't have part of the army and various parties plotting against him and his plans; that, together with a shah/king that's waiting to see what the Brits will say next so he can abide by that (please refer to the telegram Masoud posted earlier)! He doesn't have Pat Robertson planning his overthrow and sending mobs to the street! Mobs that (would) have already killed one president, a few intellectuals and other figures so far... He doesn't have an entire media system getting paid by various factions/foreign entities/parties to write articles against him. It's a very different situation. Obama hasn't found a major gold mine (oil) that has everyone drooling and attracts all the greed in the world. All of this to say you should compare apples with apples, oranges with oranges.

As to Dr. Fatemi, it's the same principle that applies. You have the king of the country, along with his sister and his mother, tampering with the affairs of the country, cooperating with foreign powers. Well sorry to break anyone's bubble, but that makes a traitor out of that king and the immediate royal family! Perhaps it was irresponsible to call for their heads, but again, it's not like we're dealing with a family who have only criticized the quality of Tehran water, you know?

That's my 2 cents. Masoud might have another take.

Regards.

Dr. Mossadegh's Vision

Dr. Mossadegh wanted the Shah to reign, and not to rule, as dictated by the Iran's Constitution. We all know that.

I have asked this question from many "Mossadeghi's", and each has given me a different answer, and I'd like to ask the participants of this discussion, this question:

What was Dr. Mossadegh's plan at the eve of 28 Mordad?

Considering:

1) Dr. Mossadegh deeply believed in a constitutional monarchy form of government for Iran.

2) Dr. Mossadegh had no 'kinghood' aspirations, did not want- or so he said- resurrect the Qajar dynesty, and was - rightfully or wrongfully-faithful to Mohammad Reza Shah.

3) The Shah had left the country and the parliament was dissolved, in a very questionable, and arguably illegal manner, breaching the very basic principle of a democratic government, namely the seperation of powers( Wouldn't Obama LOVE to dissolve the US Congress by a refrendum today, and get his debt ceiling deal, claiming "the American people are "fed up" with political posturing"?)

4) His secretary of State and right hand, Dr. Fatemi was openly calling for the execution of all royal family members. Was this the position of his cabinet? The prime minister is faithful to the Shah and the vice premier is calling for his execution  !

5) Mobs were pulling down the Shah's statues. 

6) The same Shah who appointed him, twice, now wanted to appoint somebody else for the job. Dr. Mossadegh in 25th of Mordad, found out the Shah- to whom he had vowed to be faithful- was replacing him.

What I- and I think many others- really didn't know, back then, or now, is: WHAT DID HE HAVE IN MIND, in a practical sense of it?

I have no doubt he wanted greatness for Iran, but how  he had planned to achieve it, considering the events of the last few days, is a mystery to me.

Sensible replies would be appreciated.

Yours,

Ali P. 

responses

Mr. Moradi,

1. Everyone has the right to question Dr. Mossadegh. Everyone has the right to criticize Dr. Mossadegh. No one here, no one in JM, and I have never said one could not or should not question or criticize. In actual fact, in my reply, I criticized Dr. Mossadegh explicitly and wrote that after 30 Tir, he should have used a referendum to replace monarchy with a republic. In another blog, I wrote that Dr. Mossadegh made several mistakes on August 18, and 19, 1953. I explicitly wrote that Dr. Mossadegh made a huge mistake by not calling upon the people on 28 Mordad to go on the street and defend their nationalist and democratic government against the coup forces (CIA. MI6, monarchists, Islamic fundamentalists).

2. The point in this blog is NOT about taboos. We in JM never ever said that no one should question or criticize Dr. Mossadegh. One of the first orders that Dr. Mossadegh issued after he became prime minister was to the Chief of Police where he said that he should not harass or bother any journalist and newspaper which criticized him.

3. We defend the RIGHT of any one to question and criticize Dr. Mossadegh and JM. If their criticisms is correct, we accept them. If in our opinion, their criticism is wrong, we use evidence, and logic to refute their criticism. This is how democracy works. This is also how science advances.

4. The point of this blog is on that you use a WRONG definition of "coup." You FALSELY state that Qavam was not connected to the British. You WRONGLY think that the lukewarm democracy which emerged after 1945 was due to the Shah. I show that the lukewarm democracy emerged despite the Shah and the British and they were determined to destroy it. And Mossadegh and JM (along with other civil society institutions) were determined to preserve, consolidate, and extend it.

Masoud

===================================

Dear Aryo Barzan,

1. I have an open mind. Evidence and logic can change my mind. In this blog, I am the only one who has actually provided evidence, logic, and other scholarly references.

2. You have NOT shown one single piece of evidence, one scholarly analysis. You have your mind already set and when you see the evidence presented, you get upset.

3. Using analogies, Mr. Moradi comes and says the earth is flat. I use evidence and logic from top scholars to show that in actual fact there is large body of evidence which absolutely and clearly show that the earth is NOT flat. You, our good monarchist Mr. Aryo Barzan get upset and without providing a single evidence says those who claim that the earth is not flat have already made up their minds. And you who claim that the earth is flat is open minded!!!!!!!

Best,

Masoud

==============================　

Dear Princess,

Thank you for your kind comments.

1. In my opinion, NOTHING is sacred. ANYTHING and everything has to be challenged. We need to have open minds and questions everything and only accept those that we have evidence for. And when new evidence emerges, then change our opinion and accept the new one based on evidence.

2. Many things in life are in the gray zone and some are "yes" or "no." For example, Americans have a saying, "you cannot be a little pregnant." One is either pregnant or not pregnant. There is no such thing as "half-pregnant."

3. During his prime minister period, everyone’s right to criticize Mossadegh was protected by the government. It was BEFORE Mossadegh-JM government and AFTER Mossadegh-JM government during the tyrannies of the Pahlavi tyrants and the tyrannies of Khomeini and Khamenei that one could not freely criticize the rulers.

4. Moreover, both the monarchists and fundamentalists have been spreading LIES and falsehoods about Dr. Mossadegh. The job of pro-democracy activists is counter these LIES and falsehoods with evidence and logic.

5. In this blog, Mr. Moradi makes assertions with wrong definition of coup, false assertion about the role of the U.K. in bringing Qavam to power, and falsely stating about the forces that maintained and threatened the lukewarm democracy which had emerged after the overthrow of Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi along with the U.K. were the primary threats to that fragile democracy and Mossadegh-JM were the primary defenders of that lukewarm democracy. And indeed with the coup which eliminated the primary defenders of that lukewarm democracy and the consolidation of the Pahlavi rule, that lukwwarm democracy was killed by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Had Mossadegh succeeded, then Iran would have been able to consolidate our lukewarm democracy and avoided the horrendous tyranny in the past 58-60 under the Pahlavi and fundamentalist dictators.

Best,

Masoud

==================================

Dear Parham,

I fully agree with you.

Best,

Masoud

Sorry to disappoint all of you

I also respect Mosaddegh, but, while you are all in this spitting contest, MKO is becoming the voice of freedom for Iran.  Take a look at what is coming right at you:

Instead, try to convince your "leaders" to organize a conference on freedom for Iran, invite all freedom loving Iranian diaspora, try to put your differences aside for a change and think about what is good for Iran: a secular democratic front.  i.e., unite under what binds you rather than building your mini-castles individually.

The people in Iran can then decide whether they want  a secular monarchy, secular federal, secular republic or ....... without the 7th century barbaric rules.

Try to Beat This ! ... ;0))

Everything You Wanted to Know About Prime Minister Mossadegh and the Coup of '53 But Never Dared to Ask ...  

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

The American Empire had a hand in Removing Mossadegh/Momo

The use of American support, by the Shah to remove Momo was later used to portray Shah as a non-independent leader and servant of the USA, but that could not be further from the truth.

At that time the American Empire was contending with the Russians, which were a mutual enemy trying to dominate Iran and Shah used this to Irans advantage more than his own.  He gave iran so much and did more good than Momo could with a country who's literacy was around 10% and who's annual income was less than $300 per person per year on Average.

//iranian.com/main/blog/amirparvizforsecularm...

is a humourous link about our walk towards democracy...

enjoy.

And that's how shahollahis muddy the waters...

Nobody has said that Mossadegh didn't make mistakes, or that he shouldn't be criticized. That's how shahollahis usually try to create a fallacy over their life-long struggle to make him look bad and make the Shah look better ("shoolooghesh mikonan").

I think Mossadegh made mistakes, I know Dr. Kazemzadeh here also thinks so, although I don't think we think of the same instances from what I've seen in previous discussions.

I think Mossadegh is criticizable, and I again know Dr. Kazemzadeh thinks the same; although again, I don't think we think of the same things when we say that.

However, trying to break a consensus of opinion formed after so many years by so many much more scholarly than all of us combined here, will take a lot more than just trying to put a spin on the events of those years (and just on a section of those events I should add) and saying "this is how it happened"! That is especially true when you don't even bring one outside element of support to your claims and the person who disagrees with you actually does, and brings many!

Saying "I have researched the subject for the past 40 years" (when the person himself is only 45-46!) and not bringing any of the elements used in that 40-year long research to the table in the argument will NOT make one's argument true! Au contraire... What is this, Mickey Mouse school?

As to what Mossadegh was and wasn't, I think history has concluded --and will do so even more-- that he was a hero of the Iranian nation for what he accomplished despite the more than difficult situation he faced. "Ta koor shavad har anke natavan did".

Valla!

Thank you!

I would just like thank the author, Mr. Moradi, and (most) people who have left comments here. In particular, my thanks go to areyo barzan and Masoud Kazemzadeh, the resident JM on IC, whose comments I always enjoy reading. 

This is one of the best discussion threads I have read on IC in a long time. I would also like to add that, even as a pro Mossadegh, I see this discussion more as a critique of our culture than of Dr Mossadegh per se. As much as I respect what Dr Mossadegh has achieved for Iran and the Iranians, I fully support the notion that he was a fallible human being like the rest of us, and his conduct should never be put beyond criticism and closer examination. Few things in life are black or white, not even Dr Mossadegh.

Thank you, Mr Moradi! 

Masoud Jaan

First of all if you have a credible answer please provide one.

Repeating my questions does not add to your credibility or make you response any more interesting.

Secondly I have not yet got any credible answer from you except the same old propaganda BS that I have been reading over and over again and have serious doubts over its authenticity. These materials have so many loop holes  and I have been over them for so many times over the past 40 years that I am fed up to the teeth with bringing them up again and again and being insulted instead on getting any credible answer or at least a constructive discussion again and again (just read comments made by  The Dude).

It might be difficult for you to accept but just because you believe an evidence to be solid and indisputable it does not make it so. At the scientific background that I come from there is no absolute truth an one is always in a mission to broad his/her view and always prepared to be surprised by new evidence and logic to the extend that it might turn his/her world upside down

My suggestion to you is to read at least two books before making any further comments and please do not lie to me because I can test you on it

1-     Khateraat va T-allomat e Mosaddegh (By Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh)

2-     Answer to History (By Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.)

To some people Mosadegh or Shah might be (depending on their mind set) either saints that could not have made any errors even if they wanted to, or traitor idiots who could never have got any thing right and had no good intensions. Furthermore it is always easier to shift the blame to the other party even easier to get a conspiracy theory and blame the foreign forces.

To me however they are both human beings with strong and weak points and yes capable of making mistakes. Personally I am more interested in the behaviour, code of conducts and achievements than the man. I’d like to know what their greatest point of strength and achievements was so that I can be inspired by it, learn from it and apply it to current situation and more importantly pass it to the next generation.

I am also very interested to know about their errors and points of flaw, not to belittle them or deny their achievements, but to learn from it prevent its repeat and again pass the lesson to the next generation.

So as you see my friend, the major difference between the two of us is that I am in quest to find the truth regardless of my own perceptions or political orientation, and when I found it I will accept it regardless of my personal feelings about it and in that journey I am not afraid of studying, examining and scrutinizing any evident to the point of fatigue regardless of whether I like or agree with what it is pointing at

However it seems to me that you on the other hand are in a mission to prove a preset agenda that you have already accepted as an absolute truth and noting is going to change your mind and even when you come across evidence that proves otherwise you will dismiss it, and this is what makes this whole conversation,well a bit pointless

Cheerio