Pictory

MG

You really need to stop insulting people and have a civil discourse. I have given reasons and examples. You chose to call me names. If you think we are gonna have democracy like this you are mistaken.

The first rule is to at least give the other opinion benefit of the doubt. You are not reading or listening. If you think USA is not going to stick its hands in Iran you are naive. USA will be up to its neck in Iran. You bet it!

PS: Dr Mossadegh thought he could run Iran without outside interference. His thinking got Iran the 1953 coup. Is that what you want to see over? Because there is too much at stake.

...

VPk jan you're so naive on so many levels I could have really used a laughter, if I wasn't in such a shity mood. First of all, right now I might be considered Iranian-Canadian (whatever the heck that means, I went to highschool and first year of college in there). Fortunately  in the over all scheme of things none of us outside of Iran means anything, almost close to zero. Our future will be decided by the people inside Iran. For two years they've been drowned in a blood bath, this can not go on for ever, big cracks at the top are begining to unravel, hence another big opportunity for us. Can we optimally utilize this opportunity?

MKO could suck our collective toe and that's about it. They've been done and burned since Iran-Iraq. Tragedy of camp ashraf revealed their strength.

Self-determination is not only a noble notion, but also a feasable, viable  political strategem. In order to ensure such an outcome on a national level, our only hope are the people of Iran. The best is yet to come. Outta here, cheers

MG

Yes you are right about the Islamic Republics around Iran. Right now MKO is lobbying Obama for support. With a lot of Israel and NeoCon backing. We better be aware of it.

There needs to be political pressure on USA not to bring an MKO government. If they do Iran is **ucked!! 

IR will be toppled whether we like it or not. But Iranian Americans may influence what comes next. We need to be active and make sure to prevent a total wreck.

Responses

• Soosan Khanoom: Was Eisenhower Imam Zaman when he toppled Mossadegh? You do not need to be Imam Zaman to topple a regime. Just need resources and planning.
• Mehrdad: I am talking about what we should do in America. They are planning the future of Iran right now. If we do not influence it the right way we are at risk. That is my point; we should all be involved.

Mehrdad jan your 100% correct

VPK, the US has created two, not one but tow, Islamic Republics on both sides of Iran. Islamic Republic of Iraq, and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with their 'constitutions' not that much different from IR. What makes you think any of these foreigners give a hoot about developing our democracy? Our only hope and salvations lies with the people's movements of Iran, from within. Outta here

This says much about our state of affairs and priorities

This is not a criticism but an observation and I hope it is taken as such...

It seems a regime that is long gone, generates much more passion and interest then the existing mayhem that we are currently in.

Multiple news/article about our brave ones (i.e. Nasrin Setodeh) got the attention of less then a handful, whereas we are on multiple pages of comment here.

Only if we could channel all this energy towards fixing our broken house now

Mehrdad

VPK Jan

Is Obama Emam Zaman?  : )

MG

As you say there are millions of Iranians outside. Most of us will not get put in jail if we return but do not want to live under tyrrany. So yes what do we do. 

I like to see an Iran where it does not matter if your are Monarchist or Todehi. It should be an issue that you campaign on for votes! One time the right wins; one time the left and many times some other party. That would allow us all to go back. It won't fix are differences but we will be able to coexist. Fight it at the ballot box! When you win be gracious. When you loose do not take to violence. And no cheating! I would love to see that and will be on a plane back if that happens. 

Big thing is how do we get there? There is another blog advocating using the MKO! I disagree with that and think it will just bring another tyranny. My personal guess is that Iran is on Obama's radar. He is systematically reshaping the Middle East. He managed Egypt and kept it from becoming another IR. I think he has plans in his second term to get rid of both Assad and Mollahs. The Iranians in America must make sure whatever he does is good for Iran or at least not a total disaster.

...

VPK jan , this entire focking world stinks  to high heaven.

You're right, Mosadegh wasn't prepared for the backlash. Still that's no reason to crush and destroy  all the hopes and aspirations  of a nation. What is done is done, shah destroyed Iran,  IR is doing it even worse than him, and we're stuck outside the country, and 80 millions stuck inside the country. I hate this situation.

A blog in here yesterday, reminded me of an absolutely dreadful episode in my life, when me and an entire cast and crew of friends and family, did our best to take care of a friend of family, who had Parkinson. He was an outstanding Iranian artist, world renowned, but he had to leave Iran under the shah, because of obvious reasons. He was also opposed to IR so he couldn't go back. A world renowned artist was forced to leave his country and never go back to where he was born, only for the sin of being born a talented artist  in Iran. Forced to die in exile, because of two phocking clowns in power in Iran.  There are tens and hundreds and thoudans cases like him, some even worse. Some of our most gifted, best national talents and brains dying in poverty and sickness outside of Iran: why, why, why? There's no justice in this world. Phock this world.

اسرار ازل را نه تو دانی و نه من
زین حرف معما نه تو خوانی و نه من
هست از پس پرده گفتگوی من و تو
چون پرده بر افتد نه تو مانی و نه من

deleted

double post.

MG

I have said before that Rastakhiz was a stupid idea. It was wrong and I condemn it. I also oppose Savak and its intimidation of people. I condemn the 1953 coup. But if Dr Mossadegh was a bit more savvy it would not have happened. Why did he not expect the British to pull something like that? What kind of leader does not know his enemies. How could you go against that kind of power without preparation and cunning. He was a patriot alright but not too good at politics.

I have also asked about how Dr Mossadegh came to power. Did he or did he not pardon Tahmasbi? Was that right; is it right to pardon the murder of your predecessor? Does it not stink to high heaven!

Since you're an apologist for monarchy, there's no real

difference between actual and potential.

Iran had the most advanced Civil Society in Middle East in 1950's. Do you know what Civil Society means. We had the most inforemd public in the region, and what happened with your shash's coup against the legitimate, legally  elected government of Dr. Mohammah Mosadeg (RIP). Iran was turned into a one-party Rastakhiz shit-hole with zero political freedoms. It was your beloved shash that turned the most advanced democracy in the middle east to a country filled with Masjid, Mahdieh, Hosaineh. It was your beloved shash's SAVAK that helped and augmented Hojatieh, and aftert 32 years yous still worry about what people call shash. He was nothing more than piss, and pissing is exactly what  he did all over that country.

Tell me , why did anyone have to leave Iran, if it wasn't for shash's Savak. why did people  either have to join his phocking stupid fascist Rastakhiz Party or leave the country.

The real sheeps are the ones who after 32 years and tons or research on the field still don't know  the difference between shionolla and Shia, stil wonder how the phock we got here. It was the phocking shash that got  all  of us here. Every single major problem in Iran form Aug '53 to 1979 was caused by the institutionon monarchy is Iran, headed by the shash. For once in your life you have the courage and integrity to  call a spade a spade.

MG

• I am not a Monarchist. But I would prefer Shah to IR.
• I admit Shah made a ton of mistakes.
• I have manners and do not call Shah *** as you do. Maybe you should learn some manners. It will do you some good. 

Without a stupid population Khomeini would have never come to power. Let us face it our intellectuals were idiots. They were either Marxist; Islamist or both! They would go and read all kinds of brilliant philosophies. Then come up with "Marxist Islami".

Now go and blame it all on the Shah. I don't care. It was the population that followed Khomeini. Did the Shah go take Americans hostage? Did the population rise and say no to that: No. The population ran around like a bunch of sheep. Screaming "Marg bar America". Let us put the blame where it goes. You know; I know and we all know who is the real problem: our parents generation. Maybe even some of our own generation. We could have had Bakhtiyar and said no.

VPK, you and all you monarchist friends are simply helpless

not only in understanding Iran , but undrstanding basically anything in this world.

After 32 phocking years you STILL don't understand why Khomenin became such a big hit, how about:

- Publishing Khominei phocking name on Etellat, and attacking him by name ( Dariosh Homayon was the one responsible for that) making him an over-night sensation.

- Unprecedented expansion of Masjids, Mahdiehas, Hossaineih,. and all othe rkinds of religious instituiion s under your beloved shash.

Khomeini became Khomeini because of all the stupidities of shash, and the hell of a one party Hezb Rastakhiz he created in Iran.

Islamic Republic is a direct product of monarchy and shash in Iran. It's about time for someone amongst the cowardly monarchist crowd to man up and own it, cheers

Monarchists by far have been one of the most corrupt,  ineffectual, disfunctional groups abroad. Compard with the amount of money they hace stolen from Iran, in th epast 32years they have done ZERO to help Iranina people. Down with monarchy.

Many people like

Bani Sadr talk sense now but used to talk BS then. At least he has the right initials :-) I still have trouble getting why did people follow that moron Khomeini? I mean did our people have any sense. 

His face on the moon my foot!! Are we the same people who produced Abu Ali Sina; Fredowsi and Khayyam? Or are we a bunch of maymoon to do taglid! In the 60s and 70s we were a bunch of maymoons and that is an insult to maymoon.

Dear MK, you keep writing about

the party that I support.  But people actually change their ideas during course of 25 years or more. However, I was in Iran when Bani Sadr was president, I know what a liberal is and Bani Sadr was no liberal. By the way, it is quite possible that Bani Sadr might talk sense now. I am talking about Bani Sadr of late 1970s, early 1980s, who was no liberal. One evidence of it was the fact that he was close to Khomeini and he should have known better. I was 15 years old and did not know Khomeini closely. what was his excuse?

Regarding Egypt

The reason things worked out was President Obama. The situation was very similar to Iran. Except that Obama has a brain while Carter does not. Both nations had strong military ties with the USA.

Obama effectively used it to "manage" the Egyptian revolution. Jimmy Carter threw the Iranian military to Khomeini. His idiot UN ambassador Andrew Young called Khomeini another Gandhi. They handed Iran over to Mollahs. 

There is a lot of blame to go around. Personally I would have settled for a military rule over IR. But no Mr. Nobel Prize winner would have none of that. He turned them into "Gandhi" who had them shot! 

Dear MK

I am not going to write a long one. Shah did not have to go. We have had similar regimes like South Korea and Taiwan morph peacefully into Democracies. Shah was not a disease he was a patriot. But he was also very flawed. 

If JM did not know what Khomeini was going to do they were naive at best. I mean as a teenager I knew Khomeini and MKO were bad news. I just regret not having gone actively supporting the Shah. We all had to go anyway might as well tried to save the nation. As for JM: yes I think if they got behind Bakhtiyar there was a chance. Now we will never know will we? 

It boils down to one thing with JM. You never forgave Shah for the Mossadegh debacle. You bit off your nose to spite your face! I have written on how Mossadegh was no saint either.  Anyway all water under the bridge. But at least take responsibility for the *** up.

Dear Anahid

Anahid jaan,

Yes. Virtually all scholars use the term "Islamist liberal," or "liberal Islamist" or "liberal" for Bani Sadr.

The communist groups used the term "liberal" in a derogatory manner for Bani Sadr as well as for Nehzat Azadi and JM. The party you support, the Tudeh Party was the main communist group that did this. The term liberal (in a negative manner) was also used by Fadaian and PMOI for Bani Sadr, NA, and JM.

During Bani Sadr’s presidency the Tudeh Party strongly sided with Khomeini and viciously attacked Bani Sadr and liberals. Do you still hate Bani Sadr (and other liberals) and still think Tudeh Party was correct in attacking liberals and supporting fundamentalists during 1979-1981?

I use the term "liberal" in a positive manner. I use the term "secular liberal" or "liberal" for JM. Most of our members are social democrats in the West European context. In the Iranian context, the term "liberal" is used for secular liberals, social democrats, as well as Nehzat Azadi and Bani Sadr.

I strongly oppose mixing religion and politics (which was done by NA and Bani Sadr). And I strongly criticize a large number of things Bazargan and Bani Sadr did. But it is fact that Bani Sadr was not a monarchist, a communist, a PMOI, or a fundamentalist. For good or ill, Bani Sadr is put in the box "liberal" in the Iranian context.

I will look forward to LEARNING from you. Please explain what category you would place Bani Sadr.

My 2 cents.

Best,

Masoud

so Bani sadr was a liberal?

Don't think so.

Dingo and VPK

Dingo jaan,

The Shah’s regime had to go. Why? The Shah’s regime was a colonial construct that was created in order to serve the interests of those who brought it to power and maintained it. If we want esteghlal (independence), that is we Iranians in Iran would make decisions about Iran, the Shah’s regime had to go. The Shah also was terribly dictatorial. If we want democracy, that regime had to go. Same with freedom and human rights.

The Shah’s regime had horrible results in Iran. In 1951-53, the main biggest group was Mossadegh and JM. Due to the Shah’s policies, in 1979, the biggest group was Khomeini and fundamentalists. And the democratic secular forces were terribly oppressed and damaged by the Shah. Of course the rise of Islamic fundamentalist is not entirely the Shah’s fault. The has been the growing rise of Islamic fundamentalist in the Islamic world before and after 1979. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere since 1928. And the rise of FIS, Hamas, and al Qaeda since 1979. Also the rise of AKP in Turkey. But the REASONS that so many in 1978-1979 supported Khomeini’s extremism and not the moderate and democratic path of JM is in large part the fault of the Shah’s policies.

There were a zillion things the Shah could have done and should have done that would prevent the rise of Khomeini. For example, if the Shah accepted the JM demands in the famous open letter of June 1977, then there is no way in hell that Khomeini would have succeeded in mobilizing millions of people in his support. Or if as late as August 1978, the Shah accepted Dr. Sanjabi’s suggestion to leave and allow the formation of govt by JM, then we would have succeeded and there would be no Khomeini in power.

By December 1978, there was no chance that JM could have stopped Khomeini without massive bloodshed. The Shah creates that situation and then you expect JM to come in and kill millions of people to stop the revolution. The situation was such that JM was not the entity to solve it.

See what happened in Egypt. Was Mubarak able to kill thousands upon thousands to remain in power? Mubarak left so early that the armed forces and the moderate forces remained relevant. If Mubarak stayed for another 18 months and massacared again and again, then when millions and millions of people were on the streets with guns, and the armed forces were collapsing, and the Muslim Brotherhood was on the verge of taking over, then all-of-then-sudden Mubarak would ask the moderate democratic opposition to accept becoming Prime Minister while he goes on a vacation, would that moderate democrat succeeded???????? Compare what Mubarak did and what the Shah did. Mubarak resigned that is he accepted to leave power for ever. The Shah even in 1979 did NOT abdicate. Heck, the Shah never abdicated!!!!! Even worse, his son took an oath and claimed to be the next king!!!!!!!!! In other words, even if JM was able to calm the situation, the Shah would return and could dismiss the prime minister and restore his own absolut rule. In late 1978, early 1979, the people wanted to end the monarchy and the main slogan was "Marg bar Shah." How in the world JM could have calmed the situation by stating that their goal is to maintained the monarchy??????!!!!!! and the right of the Shah to return.

It is absolutely WRONG to blame the JM for all these actions by the Shah which created the situation and helped Khomeini. By late 1978 cancer had spread all over the body and there was no way ANY doctor could have saved the situation. You can be emotional and jump up and down and blame the doctor. I am giving you the diagnosis of how things were in 1978-1979.

The VF regime also has to go. The VF regime, like the shah’s regime, also is like cancer that is killing the Iranian body politic. Dr. JM as well as other Doctors are presenting their prescriptions. Our prescription is free vote and referendum whereby the Iranian people could democratically vote and say what they want: VF yes or no. And the decide if the people want secular democratic republic or some other form of government. If Khamenei pursues policies that result in war or disintegration of Iran, it is because Dr. JM’s prescription was not followed.

Then, you come and blame JM instead of blaming Khamenei!!!!!! The Shah does all these horrible things and you blame the JM!!!!! Now Khamenei does all these horrible things and you blame JM!!!!!

The problem is cancer and not the doctor.

Best,

Masoud

VPK jaan,

I believe that I answered your question in my response to Dingo. You think that in December 1978 had the JM sided with Dr. Bakhtiar, then Khomeini would not have been able to come to power. You are wrong. By December 1978 under those circumstances, it was not possible to stop Khomeini.

Moreover, the Shah never abdicated. Also in 1978, one could not predict that Khomeini would have established the hell that he did in fact establish afterwards. Also it was not possible to know that Khomeini would have been able to consolidate his power. The actions of a variety of parties helped Khomeini and hurt the liberal forces (JM, Bazargan, Bani Sadr). For example, PMOI and large sector of Fadaian sided with Khomeini and opposed JM and Bazargan in 1979-1980 period. For example, had form Feb 1979, the left (PMOI, Fadaian, Peykar) strongly sided with the liberals and opposed the fundamentalists, then we might have a good chance of stopping the consolidation of Khomeini’s fundamentalism. Other factors include the untimely death of Ayatollah Taleqani who did in fact side with the liberals.

The situation was very complex. And you terribly over-simplify the matter. JM’s analysis was actually the best. JM stated that the primary contradiction was between democracy and dictatorship. The problem is that other forces acted in such manner that did not help our side.

Best,

MK

Shah; torture and

When I lived in Iran I heard a lot about Savak. I heard all the terrible allegations. Not one person I knew was tortured by them. My father ran a business. We had a guy from Savak that we were required to hire.

He was a pretty nice guy! There were a number of "hot heads" who got taken to Savak. One guy told us that he expected torture. Instead they had a long conversation with him and explained their point of view. He asked "why aren't you going to kill me". They told him Iran had invested a lot in him and they rather he lived. He was let go and was back at our company. He never opposed the Shah after that. This was not my idea of "torture". Not even psychological.

They just explained that he was too valuable as a person for Iran. They were not out to kill or maim him. They just wanted him to stop making trouble. But the stories kept coming out. Again I say: not one person I know who was taken by Savak was "tortured". I am not saying it did not happen. Of course there may be overzealous ***holes who would do that. We have them right here in USA. Did you hear about Marine Jose Guerena? In all nations there are loose canons. But that does not mean you need a revolution. And then bring a blood thirsty maniac named Khomeini into power! Boy dd the Marxists get "their freedom". Yes from life! They got peace alright;; peace of death. But I still know aging Iranian ex-Marxists right here in USA who shamelessly support that idiotic revolution.

Dear MK

BOTH the revolution and the post-revolution are the results of the Shah’s regime.

Now to me this is a classic example of not taking responsibility. Sir, it was your actions and those of your friends that brought the hell of IR. Yes Shah had is faults. But it was JM; Marxists and Islamists that brought the revolution. If you people had any sense you would never have picked Khomeini over Bakhtiyar. Taking personal responsibility requires courage and strength. It is unfortunately lacking among the revolutionaries. Who still bask in their "revolution" while Iran rots in hell.

Thank for nothing.

VPK

Dear Masoud, we are not in disagreement.

You did not contradict any statement that I posed. Obviously you are anti shah and proud of your participation in the revolution. I do not call Shah a cancer. If JM is a "doctor" than it should NEVER again practice medicine. I think you are trying to put the BEST FACE possible on the answers, justify and excuse them. Good luck to you with this. We know where you stand that is the end of it for me.

Truth is the truth.

Dingo

Dingo jaan,

D: IS OUR CURRENT LAJAN THE RESULT OF THE REVOLUTION? YES

MK: BOTH the revolution and the post-revolution are the results of the Shah’s regime. Let me clarify this with an analogy. The Shah’s regime is like cancer. The revolution is like cancer surgery. And the post-revolution situation like post-surgery. You are upset with the post-surgery situation. I am telling you that I am concerned with the cancer (Shah’s regime).

D: WAS THE HUMAN RIGHT SITUATION GETTING BETTER UNDER SHAH? YES, WE AGREE THIS.

MK: It was due to Carter administration and NOT due to the Shah. If it was due to the Shah, then we would have had a reduction before Carter. The people hated the Shah soooooo much that they people used the reduction of repression to organize and demand their legitimate rights. Then, Shah used repression against them. A lot of people were killed by the Shah between June 1977 and January-Feb 1979.

D: DID JM AND MEK BETRAY SHAH AND MAKE THE REVOLUTION? YES, YOU ARE DEFENDING IT EVEN NOW.

MK: The Shah was the enemy of Iran’s national interests, democracy, freedom, and human rights. The Shah hod to be overthrown. The Shah did not allow a democratic way for the Iranian people to get what they wanted. Back to the analogy. The Shah is the cancer. The revolution one method to get rid of the revolution. Referendum was another method to get rid of the cancer. The Shah had to go.

D: THIS IS WHY IRANIANS DO NOT TRUST YOU! WE DON'T WANT TO BE YOUR NEXT "MISTAKE"!

MK: Cancer is the enemy of the body politics of Iran. JM is like a doctor. Sometimes a doctor is able to provide a surgery or remedy that helps. The fact that sometimes a doctor is not able to cure, does not mean that the doctor is bad. Many many people die everyday due to cancer. The problem is the cancer (Shah’s brutal tyranny).

Actually, TODAY the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people have embraced our ideals of freedom, democracy, and human rights. Poll after poll shows that the Iranian people want a secular democratic republic. Our founder, Dr. Mossadegh is one of the most popular if not the most popular political figure among vast majority of the Iranian people.

Best,

Masoud

No need

to shout. Let your argument stand on it's on merit , or lack there of.

Amirparvaz jan,

I feel your pain and I know where you are coming from. But we have to be honest. Shah did violate some human rights in 1970s, it was not all fabrication. The question is what was the correct way to deal with it?

That is where you and I and most thinking people disagree with the revolutionaries who brought us this LAJAN government. I understand the opinions of people in Mr. Kazehmzade's camp. But I think they are wrong. They have a history of being wrong by participating in the Islamic revolution. Sadly they can not see it or admit to it. That's fine with me. I just don't trust the judgement of such people. Nothing personal.

Dear Masoud, sorry for being blunt and truthful

I always know when I am being addressed by academics because as they say they take 5 pages to clear the throat.

The truth is simple. Reading your long response, it could have been made only 3-4 lines.

IS OUR CURRENT LAJAN THE RESULT OF THE REVOLUTION? YES

WAS THE HUMAN RIGHT SITUATION GETTING BETTER UNDER SHAH? YES, WE AGREE THIS.

DID JM AND MEK BETRAY SHAH AND MAKE THE REVOLUTION? YES, YOU ARE DEFENDING IT EVEN NOW.

That's really it, Dr. Kazemzadeh. It is very simple.

THIS IS WHY IRANIANS DO NOT TRUST YOU! WE DON'T WANT TO BE YOUR NEXT "MISTAKE"!

Dingo

No Tortures occured during 1970's, when the world media and foreign officials accused Savak of committing them. 

You can find many many cases today by the USA and IRI, however if you honestly look for cases from the 70's by Savak you will not find any legitimate record of them,

I admit in part because many people who made the accusations were killed by khomeini, but mainly because its one thing to make allegations to support your buddies that are either killing cops or burning cinemas, its another thing for it to have really occured.  Accusations are easy.

In real cases of torture there is lots of real evidence and it comes from within the system, in the USA's case we have from within pictures and reports, in the IRI case we have pictures, video and testimony from within the apparatus,

in Savaks case, mainly because it never occured, we have no such evidence, what we have is list after list of people that were held as political prisoners by Savak and interrogated, both living today in the USA today like Abbas Milani "anti monarchist" and in the Regime in Iran like "mehdi karroubi", also anti monarchist, and many other prominent Iranians affiliated with radical organizations that were at one time a political prisoner... who like all the rest say they were not tortured.

The cases when it did occur, were Not under the micro management of the Shah, but a General that the CIA recommended to be put in charge of Savak (Bakhtiyar) and after cases were reported and evidence found, he was instantly removed by the Shah and arrested.  Everything points to Shah having no knowledge of the cases and up holding the laws of the land in which torture was a crime, by anyone.

Regarding Shah being a violent man, isn't the truth obvious to any one studying him?

Regarding Shah being a dictator, despot, tyrant isn't the truth obvious to any one studying him, I mean without a previous agenda? 

Surely its obvious in reviewing the foreign news of the past by all the reporters going to Iran and freely speaking with regular people that Iran was a constitutional monarchy, being lead by an autocratic king, who had developed independent judiciary and independent universities and with a functioning parliament.

Dictating policy is what any leader does, democrat or autocrat, that is not what makes a person a dictator, sadly few care to know the definition. 

Dingo, Khers, Mola

Dear Dingo,

D: 1. Was Shah directly controlling SAVAK when those crimes happened?

MK: Yes, the Shah was directly controlling SAVAK. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a micro-manager and was involved in most minute stuff. For example, every single sarhang (leut. Colonel) had to get the permission of the shah to go on vacation!!!! and no jet fighter could fly without permission of the Shah. SAVAK although supposedly under Prime Minister’s office, was in actually directly under the Shah.

D: 2. Do you think the Revolution was the best way to react to these problems?

MK: Revolutions are very rare in human history. They occur when not only when the rulers lose legitimacy, but also when the ruling despots bloc all avenues for reforms.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi lacked legitimacy. Pahlavi lacked nationalist legitimacy. He was correctly regarded as puppet of foreign powers. His father was brought to power by the British to serve their interests. When he moved away from the Brits and towards Nazi Germany, they removed him and put his son in power. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a puppet of the British 1941-1953 and puppet of the US 1953-1979.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi himself admits this and his advisers admit this.

//iranian.com/History/2005/January/Kinzer/index.html

"The State Department informed us today on a number of occasions associates of the shah have told Henderson that His Majesty is uncertain about the British attitude towards himself. He is reported to be harping on the theme that the British had thrown out the Qajar Dynasty, had brought in his father and had thrown his father out. Now they could keep him in power or remove him in turn as they saw fit. If they desired that he should stay and that the Crown should retain the powers given to it by the Constitution, he should be informed. If on the other hand they wished him to go, he should be told immediately so that he could leave quietly."

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

In my opinion, the BEST solution would have been a DEMOCRATIC solution. The Shah should have accepted a referendum where the people could have voted for what the Iranian people want. I would have voted for a democratic secular republic. The Shah did not even allow a simple regular free democratic election for majles.

The Pahlavi regime was a puppet colonial regime. It was a terribly brutal tyranny. There was no freedom of the press, political parties, elections. It had horrendous human rights record. The Shah did not allow any opportunity for the Iranian people to elect whom they wanted. Because the Shah CLOSED the possibility of change then revolution became inevitable. If the Shah had allowed freedom and free elections, there would have been no revolution. Instead of freedom, the Shah used extreme violence to continue his illegitimate brutal rule.

Dingo: Now about my straight forward idea. It's very simple: THE REVOLUTION WAS THE PROBLEM.

None of these LAJAN that we are in would have happened if there was no revolution. I know many Iranians agreed with the revolution at the time but now are unhappy. Well, this is the direct consequence.

MK: Revolution occurred because the Shah did not allow peaceful democratic path for the Iranian people. By his extreme dictatorship, his extreme violence, the Shah only allowed revolution as the sole path. It was 100% the fault of the Shah. If the Shah had allowed freedom of the press and parties and elections then there would NOT be a revolution.

Dingo: So, forgive me for being VERY SKEPTICAL of groups who participated directly in bringing down our government and Monarch in 1979. Jebhe Melli and Mojahedeen Khalgh both HELPED bring down Shah and there is no denying this. JM even betrayed Bakhtiar who was Iran's last savior. So, I really wonder how we should trust them again when then are so directly responsible for what has happened?

MK: If YOU want to see the return of the illegitimate puppet brutal tyranny of the Pahlavis and the resultant fights against them, then go ahead and support the return of Pahlavi tyranny. The monarchists have a LOOOOOOOOONG history of brutal tyranny.

If, however, you want independence, freedom, democracy, and human rights, then look around and see which political party-coalition in Iran has a record of promoting these. Jebhe Melli since 1949, that is for about 62 years has a solid record of promoting democracy, freedom and human rights.

For those who want DEMOCRACY, the choice is 100% clear. It is the Iran National Front.

For those who want DICTATORSHIP, then there are several groups that have a proven record of brutal dictatorship (e.g., Pahlavi monarchy, VF regime, etc).

What is most interesting is that most other groups in Iran have evolved in the past 32 years. Many Iranian Stalinists have abandoned their former dictatorial policies and have embraced democracy. The monarchists of 2011 as we can clearly witness on Iranian.com and elsewhere is that they are far more tyrannical today that the monarchists of 1978.

Dingo: Most people know that human right problems was getting better and would have solved itself in a few years. If Prince Reza came to power in 1982 in a normal succession, Iran would be far better than what it is now. With ensaf, we have to face the TRUTH before we make any progress

MK: Because of President Carter’s human rights policy, the Shah reduced his brutal savage tyranny. The Shah was a puppet of the U.S. and when Carter was elected, the Shah felt that he had to reduce his brutalities. Even under Carter, the Shah kept mass murdering the people (around 2,900 people) and the Carter administration kept publically supporting the Shah’s massacres. Some in the Carter White House such as the National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was telling Ardeshir Zahedi to go ahead and massacre as many as the Shah wanted in order to put down the protests. Zahedi had communicated this to the Shah. At the same time, Cyrus Vance, Sec of State was telling U.S. amb to Iran, Sullivan and he to the Shah that the US wished restraints and respect for the human rights.

If Mohammad Reza Shah did not collaborate with CIA in 1953, then we would be have been able to consolidate our lukewarm democracy and Iran would have been far better than now. If Mohammad Reza Pahlavi allowed freedom of the press, parties and elections anytime between 1953 and 1977, we would have had a transition from his brutal savage tyranny to democracy and we would have been far better than today.

RP talked about democracy and constitutionalism. How do we know he is not trying to fool people the way Khomeini did in Paris??????

The question is this. If RP wants power as king, then that demand is anti-democratic. Why the hell this one person should have power?????? Democracy means that those with power should be freely and democratically and periodically elected by the people. If RP does not demand power and is only asking symbolic ceremonial role, then why the hell mess with a constitution. Those who regard him as THEIR king are free and bend over and kiss his hands or feet. WHY the hell force the rest of us who oppose monarchy to accept this?????????? And the FACT is the overwhelming majority of monarchists are truly brutal totalitarian tyrants. Just look at what our actual monarchists write on Iranian.com.

In conclusion, the Pahlavi monarchists have an actual history of brutal savage tyranny. The Pahlavi monarchists of 2011 show that they are far more tyrannical today than they were in 1978. Therefore, if any Iranian wants democracy, freedom, and human rights, they cannot support this tyrannical gang. Those Iranians who want democracy, freedom, and human rights support the group that has an actual record of supporting democracy, freedom and human rights such as Jebhe Melli Iran.

JM has made mistakes and it will make mistakes. To make mistakes is part of and parcel of life. But to make mistakes is DIFFERENT than the CRIMES against humanity committed against the Iranian people that were committed by the Pahlavi monarchists who still write here they wish to had done even more. Pahlavi tyrants mass murdered people, mass tortured people, imposed a brutal tyranny. JM never ever murdered anyone, never tortured anyone. JM opposed dictatorship under Pahlavis and under the VF regime.

Best,

Masoud

====================================　

Khers,

On the 12th Imam and Mohamad Reza Shah, see his own words:

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/oriana-fallaci-interview-mohammad-reza-shah-religion

On Mohamad Reza Pahlavi promoting Shia Islam see:

//iranian.com/main/news/2010/07/29-10

Write something that has some connection to reality.      

MK

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

Molla,

Monarchists are bad. You fundamentalists are far worse.

MK