BAKHTIAR

جناب انگلوفایل

مهم این هست که ما خطاهای گذشته را تکرار نکنیم

بسیاری از رهبرانی که امروز منفورند دیروز محبوب بودند

امثال خامنه ای, رفسنجانی, رجوی و نگهدار جوان های پر شور و پر طرفداری بودند

مشکل اساسی این بود که اینها به ما نو جوانان اونموقع وعده بهشت برین میدادند اما ما را از جهنم میگذراندند.

این رهبران دست پروردگان جنگ چریکی و زیر زمینی بودند. روابط مافیایی و رهبران نقش پدر خوانده داشتند. امثال خمینی رفسنجاتی, خامنه ای, رجوی و نگهدار دست پرورده چنبن مناسباتی بودند.

معیار قضاوت ما زندانی شدن, شکنجه و  تبعید و در یک کلام از جانگذشتگی این رهبران بود.

به این دلیل ما بنا به تشخیص خود به این یا ان گروه تعلق داشتیم. از جانگذشتگی شرط لازم بود ولی کافی نبود. اینها به ما وعده جامعه بی طبقه توحیدی و کمونیستی میدادند و ما باور میکردیم.

در یک کلام ما هیچگونه کنترلی بر این رهبران نداشتیم و به آنها جازه دادیم این رهبران پر شور به چند جنایتکار تبدیل شوند. اینها دست پروردگان ندانم کاری ما بودند. بختیار در هیچکدام از این معادلات وجود نداشت. او یک عنصر خارجی و بی ارتباط بود

     متاسفانه هیچیک از جریانات سیاسی از چپ تا به راست از دموکراسی درونی سالم برخوردار نیستند. طرفداران بختیار نیز از این قاعده مستثنی نیستند .

ایینطور بنظر میرسد که خیلی ها طرفدار این میباشند که سرمایه های مالی جهانی اسم چند نفر را به سر زبان ها بیاندازند تا ما از بین آنها یکی را انتخاب کنیم.  و اینکه بزرگترین اسپانسر این پروژه اسرائیل و عربستان میباشند و طرفداران بختیار به ظاهر ملی کاندیدای درجه یک سرمایه های مالی جهانی باشند.

اسرار من بر این هست که اشتباهات گذشته را تکرار نکنیم واینکه مکانیزمی داشته باشیم کا اینبار رهبران با اراده اعضا, سازمان و حزب خود را هدایت کند.

اگر امثال آقای باقر زاده چنین مناسباتی را هدایت کنند من عضو فعال چنین تشکلی خواهم شد.

Amouzegar vs Milani

LOL anglophile Jan Loved that clip ...

I tell You ...

No One can Outfox the Fox ... ;0)

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OFHFN8YkI4

آقای حسینی‌ - یادش بخیر

جناب دكتر باقر زاده عزيز

Jahangir Amuzegar's take on Milani's 'Flawed' Interpretations...

Abbas Milani's Book Reviewed by Jahangir Amuzegar (Imperial Iran’s former minister of both commerce and finance)

‘The Shah’ is measured and civil-but flawed by Jahangir Amuzegar

Well Clearly Bakhtiar viewed the Constitution as a "Comer" ...

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

The "R" Word ... 

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy (Newsweek interview made inLondon July 30th,1984 )

N'est Ce Pas Anglophile Jan ?

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights' 

Given the circumstances I truly Don't see why we still hesitate in supporting the Legitimate heir of Iran's throne ...

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... by Darius KADIVAR 

RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ... by Darius KADIVAR    

All the more that he has been accountable for his father's would be errors ...

ROYAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Crown Prince Reza Praises Mossadegh's Patriotism (ANDISHEH TV)

ROYAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Crown Prince Reza on Torture During His Father's Rule

One King's Shortcomings doesn't make the Dynasty Illegitimate ...

PRAISE FOR REZA SHAH: Adjoudani Slams Lack of Recognition for Pahlavi Dynasty's Founder 

Otherwise what should be said of some of you folks ?

COMPLAINING JOMHURYKHAH: What Have the Pahlavis EVER Done For Us ? ;0) 

Related:

Cyrus Amir-Mokrion Pros and Cons of 1906 Constitution     

Facts

There were actually 3 people who were considered for the PM job, Sanjabi in addition to Sadighi and Bakhtiar. Sanjabi conditioned his acceptance of the post upon appoval of Khomeini!!

Sadighi had many meetings with the Shah and lots of precious time was wasted due to Shah's indecision and/or decreased mentation due to medications/sickness. Sadighi was not a member of Jebhe Melli as suggested. He was not "disowned" as he was not owned to begin with. In fact, Sanjabi and JB had reasoned that they would not suppor thim because he was not active in JM after 1953. Bakhtiar actually did not agree with this JM position. He did not oppose Sadigghi's possible PMship. 

Yes, Bakhtiar wanted the Shah to leave and Sadighi wanted him to stay. In retrospect this was possibly a mistake as he did not have the support of the army after the Shah left. But his counterarguement was that Shah's presence was a liability to his claim to a new era of democratic reform. 

According to Milani, the Shah decided against Sadighi's PMship decause he insisted on him staying in the country. There was no "competition" for PMship.

Bakhtiar and JM intially contacted Darbar via the x-PM jamshid Amouzegar in sep or oct 1978. According to Amouzegar Bakhtiar and Razmara met with him and their initial suggestion for PM was Elahyar Saleh and not Bakhtiar. Threafter, Bakhtiar supported Sadighi and even encouraged Sanjabi to take the position.  

There is no historical evidence to suggest that Bakhtiar had any personal motives to become PM. To suggest that he wanted badly to be PM in that political turmoil for  romantic and adventurist motives is childish. 

ROOG 

Re Farah & Milani

My take is that she simply wouldn't see him because he used to be a Toodeyi, or a Toodeyi sympathizer. And we know how "those people" feel about ex-Toodeyis.

Thank you for your honest opinion Mr P.

Parham is right

Shah was a goner but it may have been possible to rescue things. It would have required a miracle. Bakhtiyar was a brave man bot not a miracle worker.

The Shah was a goner anyway.

The Shah was a goner anyway. Had Bakhtiar said no like Sadighi, the Shah would still have gone for someone who'd accept that he leave. And as Ali P. said, accepting the premiership at a time when the boat had already sunken or almost, that's courage, not ambition -- at all, in fact.

Dr. Sedighi as an academician, and as a politician

As the former, he is also known as the first Iranian sociologist. The first Iranian in the 20th century trained as such. His thesis on early Islamic movements remanis a classic.

As the latter, especially in his capacity as Interior minister, he left so much to be desired. Suffice it to say during the coup his actions, or rather his inaction bordered on farce. A farce we all paid for.

I agree with Mr Anglophile...

and so did Bakhtiar himself.

Dr.Sedighi was  better known than Bakhtiar, and Bakhtiar knew that. Becoming Shah's appointed prime minister may have been a "romantic/adventurist" pursuit for many in 1975, but it was not by any means,as I am sure you know, a sought after position in December 1978. I am not aware of anyone else who'd volunteer for the job at the time, except for the two brave Mossadeghi men above.

Sedighi's premiership became absolete bilaterally: The Shah didn't push- maybe because he already made up his mind to leave Iran- and Dr. Sedighi did not pursue the path, probably because of the pressure exerted on him by Jebheh Melli.

We failed to back Bakhtiar. He lost the battle, and with that, Iran lost her last chance for a possible democracy.

Bakhtiar was not the sole competitor

Good one Ali!

Good one Ali!

Good one Ali!

Good one Ali!

Mr. Anglophile

As far as I am concerned, Bakhtiar had 3 choices, two of which, admittedly, were pretty safe ones at the time.

Bakhtiar could have:

a) Ignored the voice of his conscious, reason, and the lessons of history, and like Bazargan, Sanjabi, and others, joined the mob and embraced Khomeini

b) Sat aside idly, and watched Iran fall on the path it fell into

c) Listened to the voice of his conscious, put his life on the line, taken responsibility,stood against the flood, and warned the nation about the future Iran was heading to under Khomeini 

What do YOU suggest, Bakhtiar should have done?

Respectfully,

Ali P.

And I agree with

And I agree with religionoutofgovernment-- as usual.

آقای باقر زاده

آقای باقر زاده

یا شما اشتباه می‌کنید و یا سفسطه می‌‌فرمایید. بختیار نمیتوانست هم شجاعت داشته باشد و هم درایت.در شجاعت او مبنی بر سوابقش در فرانسه و اسپانیا تردیدی نیست. این یک خصلت بختیاری است که عمو زاده او یعنی تیمور بختیار هم داشت و البته به مراتب بیشتر. ولی‌ بختیار اگر بر اساس نوشته شما "درکی از واقعیت" می‌داشت و "بر اساس آن عمل میکرد" نمی‌‌بایست هرگز پست نخست وزیری را قبول میکرد و یا به قول دکتر نهاوندی "داوطلب" پذیرش چنین شغلی‌ میشد. بختیار اگر کوچکترین فهمی‌ از چگونگی روابط میان شاه و سران ارتش می‌داشت، و یا اگر کوچکترین آشنائی با سران مذهبی‌ ایران می‌داشت باید این را بخوبی درک میکرد که در غیاب شاه نه ارتش از او حسابی‌ می‌‌برد و نه اینکه مذهبیون و پیروانشان ذره‌ای ارزش برای وی و آرا و عقاید واو قائل بودند. بختیار اگر درک واقع بینانه‌ای از شرایط حاکم بر مملکت می‌داشت به خوبی‌ می‌‌فهمید که هیچ حمایتی از هیچ یک از جناح‌های مطرح در آن برهه زمانی‌ یعنی: ارتش، روحانیت، اپوزیسیون، مجلس و مهم تر از همه مردم نداشت. او چهره‌ای ناشناخته برای همگان بود مگر تنی چند از سران جبهه ملی‌. افکار و عقاید او برای زمانی‌ خوب بود که مملکت هنوز دچار رستاخیز آریامهری نگردیده بود و هویدا‌های بله قربان گوی رفته بودند."نقطهٔ غیر قابل بازگشت" آ‌ن ثانیه‌ای بود که مجلس به بختیار رأی عتماد داد. او مرد کار زار آن بحران انقلابی‌ نبود و تاریخ این را  به وضوح ثابت کرد. پذیرش پست نخست وزیری شاه در حالی‌ که بر همه آشکار بود که او هیچ تکیه گاهی‌ نداشت یا از روی حس ماجراجویی لری بود و یا از رو نادانی‌ لری -  در برخی‌ محافل به این می‌‌گویند "خیانت". 

Eslame Siasi

Mr. Bagherzadeh, I enjoyed reading your article on Nehzate Azadi, and agree with it 100%. In my mind, "Eslame Siasi" encompasses a spectrum of people and oranizations as diverse as Fadaian Eslam and the rest of Akhounds to Nehzate Azadi and all the figures you mentioned and to the Green movement of today. They are all different faces of the same evil concept. There will be no real change unless we go back to politics without Eslam.

To ahossein & Esfand Aashena

ahossein

I have been talking about Bakhtiar and not "his tarafdaran".  In the meeting, it was planned to have a discussion session at the end, but I don't know why it did not take place.

By the way, to establieh the facts, I never joined the National Council of Resistance.  I was asked to act as their rep in UK which I did.  At the time Mansoor Farhang was theri rep in America and I was in UK.  Neither of us were members.  I resigned from my position when Mojaheding started imposing their hegemony on NCR and some independent members left the group or were kicked out.

Esfand Aashena

I did not blame the groups you mentioned for Khomieini coming to power.  I blamed them for joining the mob and opposing Bakhtiar.  It is the question of tking a stand, even if it is doomed (as Bakhtiar's was).  The statement that nothing could stop khomeini from coming to power, is meaningless.  After all you agree that if things have been different several months/years earlier then the otcome would have been different.  And I agree that by the time Bakhtiar came to power it was too late (said so in the article).  And the point of no-return was somewhere in between which is somehow controversial and I did not cover.

I said in the article that Bakhtiar had both the insight and the corage.  Many failed the first and few in his position would/could dare act against Khomeini:

بختیار از معدود کسانی بود که خطر استبداد مذهبی را به خوبی درک کرده بودند، و مهمتر از آن این که او حاضر شده بود با شنا کردن بر خلاف جریان آب، بر اساس تشخیص خود عمل کند. یعنی درک واقعیت، و عمل بر اساس آن. بسیاری در اولی لنگ زدند و کمتر کسی حاضر بود که دومی را مرتکب شود. بینش و شجاعت عمل: این دو خصوصیتی بود که بختیار داشت و هیچ کس دیگر در موقعیت او نداشت 

Nehzat Azadi et all were quite different.  You mention Qotbzadeh.  I knew him personally.  He was no democrat, and no secular either.  The book by his lady friend is very superficial.  She knew him as he presented himself to her.   Also see my analysis on Nezat-e Azadi here:

//www.radiofarda.com/content/f3_nehzatazadi_iran_islamic_politics/24109106.html 

The Man In the mirror

Thanks for the suggestion. I will get the book. 

Please let's not forget that the demonstrations started with the Article about Khomeini, written supposedly by Dariush Homayooun, alleging that he was a British agent. Khoemini was a central figure in the revolution from the start. I agree that many people, including the Melliun, gathered around him becuase they assumed anything was better than the status quo and that they would puch him aside eventually. This is very similar to people following the Greens, despite the Green's allegiance to the regime. It is hard for me to belive that Nehzate Azadi people could choose the leader of the revoultion (ie Taleghani instead of Khomeini). They did not have that kind of power.

 In the end, they did cooperate with a religious figure who had supported Fadian Eslam, had opposed women's right to vote, had opposed land reform and had written his ideas about Velayate Faghih. In my books, that was a huge mistake, regardless of any immediate consequences to them.

Man in the Mirror

Religon, I have been reading this book The Man in the Mirror  by Ghotbzadeh's former girlfriend for the past 2 - 3 years now!  I can't finish the damn thing yet I'm looking at it every day on my desk!  I'd highly recommend it if you have the time or interest to read it.

It is a behind the scenes look on what people around Khomeini thought and acted.  Apparently Ghotbzadeh, Bazargan and others preferred Taleghani over Khomeini but Yasir Arafat (the preeminent person on Islamic revolutionaries of the time) told them that Taleghani can't deliver the revolution but Khomeini can.

Khomeini also was toying with the concept of VF and the first constitution that he approved didn't have the VF in it but when Bani Sadr took it back to be "tweaked" a bit to be more democratic Khomeini added the VF and told Bani Sadr to shut the F up!

You are right they probably were more religious than Bakhtiar but I believe their main reason was to have a broad enough coalition to be able to bring the Shah down.  Afterall Shah had established a major dictatorship that made people scared to talk behind him in the privacy of their own homes, much less overthrowing him altogether.

Everything is sacred

Gee

I have to admit it but I agree with EA; things did need to be done sooner. I agree with others also Bakhtiyar was a good choice years sooner. That whole 2500 fiasco was very detrimental to Shah. 

Worse was Jashne Honar which really got people insulted. All the pomp and ignoring our problems played in the hand of xenophobes. We got to face it: Iran was not Acamaneshid. Shah was not Cyrus the Great.

Iran was a developing nation with a way to go. We needed reforms much sooner. The final straw was Rastakhiz which proved to people no reform was in the works. In fact it was going backwards. It gave all the ammo to his enemies they required.

Agree with most

Esfand, I thank you for your response and the opportunity to have a civil discussion about this.

I agree with you on almost everything you said. I particularly like and agree this statement:

"Nothing could've stopped the train.  The ONLY way the train could've been stopped was if Shah had instituted reformsinstead of throwing 2500 year party and serving tons of caviar to rich folks from around the world! "

However, I do have one disagreement. I do not belong to any political organization and don't really support any group.  But I do believe that there is a big difference, historically, between Bakhtiar and Nehzate Azadi (ie all the people you mentioned). The difference is the way they viewed the role of religion in politics. My understanding is that Bazargan and Nehzate Azadi in 1963 supported Khomeini and from the beginning had religion in their political platform. They were in close contact with him throughout those years, from 1963 to 1979. They had plenty of opportunities to know Khomeini for the evil he was. They also should have known his ideas about Velayate Faghih and should have read his books. Their actions showed that they DID want to mix religion with politics. I also believe that they looked at Khomeini as a vehicle who would bring them to power and then would go to Qom. That was a huge miscalculation on their part and not very politically astute. It also was't a principle centered political position to take.

 Clearly Bakhtiar did not side with Khomeini and did not support him from 1963.  He differed from Nehzate Azadi in his secular thinking. You may disagree but I beleive he knew about Khoemini's intention of establishing a theocracy and limiting not only political freedoms but also social freedoms. This is the impression I get when he talked about Estabdade Naalein.

In any case, I do belive Bakhtiar's place in history is much different than those of Bani Sadr, Qotbzadeh, Yazdi, Bazagan and the rest of them. However, I do agree that what happended may have been inevitable. 

Religion out of government

As I said in my comment many (apparently including Mr. Bagherzadeh) would like to "verse" in every analysis about the revolution that communists, left, intellectuals were "instrumental" in bringing Khomeini to power.

You know "verse"?  Like when you're counting tasbih you HAVE to read the verse to yourself and sometimes louder, and repeat?  Rinse and repeat?!

There were MANY who didn't like Khomeini.  MANY ordinary Iranians, including communists, left and the intellectuals who were weary of Khomeini and in just about ALL conversations were not sure about the future and wanted to have some other direction.

Even Ghotbzadeh, Bazargan, Bani Sadr and others who were surrounding him didn't want his direction.  Some lost their lives over this and some had to leave the country.  Do you think Bakhtiar was any different than Ghotbzadeh in this context for example?  The only difference is that Ghotbzadeh didn't become a PM (couldn't since SAVAK was after him ;-) but both wanted political prisoners released and elections held.  Two pillars that Mr. Bagherzadeh attributes to Bakhtiar.

I like Bakhtiar too and wish he was given more chance, better yet he should've become a PM much sooner.  I also like Mr. Bagherzadeh writing an article about him to introduce him and what he did in those days to others who may not know.

But this attitude that many like to have to say "I told you so" is not unique.  Like you said, look around and everyone is issuing a prescription about what should've been done back then.  Nothing could've stopped the train.  The ONLY way the train could've been stopped was if Shah had instituted reforms instead of throwing 2500 year party and serving tons of caviar to rich folks from around the world! 

More should've been done much sooner (in the 70s) with reforms and we could've avoided an Islamic Republic or at best they could've taken few spots in the parliament.  But times were different and Iranians are special.  They were among the first to throw out a dictatorship but their revolution was hijacked.  It's that simple. 

Everything is sacred

Esfand

Esfand, with all due respect, I am not quite sure what your critism of the articles is. I do agree with what you say. The people did not and would not allow a democratic choice, there were other people against Khomeini who did not dare to speak and some actually did, and yes the Shah was also scared and also very sick.

But I don't read the article as "I told you so". Bakhtiar loudly and clearly talked to us about the idea of secularism, which took the people 30 years to understand. He was a man of principles. He had the courage to stand up to Khomeini. And the fact that Khomeini had such a popular following, does not make his courage any less heroic.

Look around this website and you see lots of Iran/Iranian and Iranian culture bashing. I think it is important to remember those historical figues who stand up for their principles. Not everyone in our history was a Nokar of the British or Americans.

too late

day late and dollar short. reality is when ever we had leaders who tried to do some good for the country and bring it out from 7th century to 21 th century they were beterayed by people, be it great Reza shah, Mohammad Reza Shah, Mossadegh and now Bakhtiar.

Bakhtiar was the wrong choice