Driving the Shah

How oil changed the balance of power in the Middle East

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Driving the Shah
by Joan Oleck
27-Sep-2011
 

Anyone who’s ever driven down an American highway, idled in America’s city streets surrounded by gas-guzzling SUVs, or shivered in the Arctic-cold air conditioning of a US office building, knows the truth: the United States has an insatiable thirst for oil.

Certainly Iran’s shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, understood that need, and for eight years, 1969 to 1977, exploited it, negotiating a series of secret oil-for-arms deals with America’s best and brightest.

The effect was to leave the United States pleading for lower oil prices – and its own economic survival – at the hands ofarch rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Oil Kings: How the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East looks closely at those deals. Using newly declassified telephone transcripts, cables, policy briefs and extended interviews with ageing officials in the Middle East and Washington, Andrew Scott Cooper (who is an academic based in New Zealand), reveals the frightening truth of the Nixon-Ford administration’s fervent courting of the shah.

Forget those smiling White House photo opportunities: the reality is that Washington’s mismanagement of its "special relationship" with the shah played a big role in fomenting Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the 1974 oil embargo, and the 1970s near-financial collapse of the developed world.

"My search for understanding," writes Cooper, "uncovered a hidden history of US-Iran-Saudi oil diplomacy from 1969 to 1977, the back story of the crucial eight-year period when the United States went from being the world’s number one oil producer to the biggest importer of petroleum, and when Saudi Arabia’s House of Saud replaced Iran’s Pahlavi king as Washington’s indispensable ally in the Gulf."

Cooper’s tale begins in 1969 at the funeral of a war hero and former president – Dwight D Eisenhower – where Nixon made his first real acquaintance with the shah. The British were preparing to pull out of the region and Nixon and Henry Kissinger were anxious to secure the oil fields and shipping lanes from Iran’s northern neighbour, the Soviet Union.

Vietnam had already "exposed the limitations of US power", Cooper writes,and the Nixon Doctrine required that hence forth only foreign proxies would "guard freedom’s forts".

The oil-rich shah allied himself with theWest in order to transform Iran into a modern power. That won him attention in Washington, as did his instant accord with Nixon. They were "essentially two lonely and insecure men who found relief in the isolation their high positions afforded", Cooper writes, in one of many asides that make these events accessible and compelling.

By late 1969, Nixon was so friendly with the shah that he had granted the leader his own special oil quota. In exchange, the shah pledged to spend every cent of those additional oil revenues on US military and intelligence hardware. This worried Nixon’s aides. "It was one thing to fly the flag for the West," Cooper writes, "another to arm it to face down Iraq, India and regional rebellions, pacifying a vast swath of the Middle East and Indian Ocean. Rearmament on the scale proposed by the shah," Cooper adds, "had the potential to bankrupt Iran."

Still, Nixon persisted, advising Iran’s lead diplomat, Ardeshir Zahedi to "tell the shah you can push [us] as much as you want [on oil prices] …" In short, the shah could "raise oil prices at will and pressure western oil companies and consumers" –all via a back channel implemented without cost assessment or risk analysis. Who cared what happened to the real Iranians not benefiting from oil dollars ? The US had its precious outpost in the Middle East.

Yet while decision makers like Kissinger couldn’t care (or know) less about economics, others did. "We don’t know just how keenly the shah appreciates the limits of financial elasticity," the CIA’s Office of National Estimates reported in 1971. The shah, the report warned, was digging himself into a debt and inflationary spiral.

Nixon was as clueless as Kissinger. Nevertheless, the president had chosen his ally in this hunt. Under the administration’s "Twin Pillars" policy, US strategy in the Gulf would rest on a strong Iran, while the other oil king,Saudi Arabia, remained in a subservient role.

The book elaborates on what happened next, although no one comes out of this particularly well. The transcripts of the oil deals reveal how Kissinger referred to Nixon as "that drunken lunatic"with "the meatball mind", and how he negotiated a settlement with Iran that cost US oil companies their strategic hold in the Saudi oil industry.

Rigged defence contracts also emerge inthese pages, most notably the one fashioned by Nelson Rockefeller, then the governor of New York, who solicited Kissinger’s help to save New York-based Grumman Corporation from bankruptcy by pushing the shah to purchase the company’s F-14 jet fighter. That deal would help carry New York state for the Nixon-Agnew ticket in the 1972 election. For his part, the shah leapt at the opportunity.

There’s more, such as the preparation of military contingency plans – which called for Iran to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – and the war games that were held in the Mojave Desert to prepare forsuch an eventuality.

Then there are the millions of dollars in kick backs paid by Grumman and Northrop to "middlemen" in Iran, facilitating all those weapons sales. And the scariest deal of all: Nixon’s agreement to sell nuclear power plants and fuel to Iran, with no apparent concern for the wider implications such a transaction might hold.

Add to this the fact that Saudi Arabia, too, became a regional player, in 1973. Angrily responding, with other participants, including Abu Dhabi and Dubai, to Washington’s support of Israel, King Faisal cut off oil supplies to the West. The ensuing oil embargo brought painful results: inflation soared by 12 percent in the US and up to 33 per cent in parts of Europe. "The Saudis are getting heady over the power of oil," James Schlesinger commented at the time; the secretary of defence actually mulled protecting US oil supplies byinvading the UAE. "I was prepared to seize Abu Dhabi,’ Schlesinger recalled. He envisioned a clean surgical strike to land American troops in the heart of Arab oil country. ‘Something small. But nothing big.’"

The shah, too, pulled away from his USallies, to pursue a foreign policy based on independent nationalism and increased oil prices, while continuing to build up his weapons cache. In December 1973, he joined the rest of Opec in more than doubling the oil price.

By then, Iran’s economy was out of control.The shah’s establishment of a one-party state had removed the facade of a loyal opposition. Iran’s economy plummeted as oil production fell, in response to decreased western orders and Washington’s first real effort at conservation.The gap between rich and poor in Tehran widened alarmingly; and despite those large oil revenues, most villages still lacked running water and electricity. Young men roamed the streets of south Tehran, unemployed and angry.

The "showdown," Cooper says, began in 1974, as the shah made it clear to the White House that high oilprices were the price of political stability in Iran. At that, even Kissinger’s rock-solid support began to falter.

In 1975, Kissinger finally seemed to break his commitment to Tehran, saying the US would use all available means "to prevent strangulation of the industrialised world".

One of those means was to ally with Saudi Arabia against Iran. The Saudis then defied Opec with a lower oil price and flooded the market with cheap crude.

We know, of course, what happened next. In 1974, the Watergate scandal brought Nixon down and the wall of secrecy that surrounded those previously murky oil deals collapsed. On its knees, Tehran begged a $500 million loan from the US thatarrived too late; and more and more talk circulated about Ayatollah Khomeini becoming a possible successor to the shah.

Cooper writes of these events with clarity,precision, and revelations that stun, even all these years later. If he’s guilty of anything in these pages, it’s of overdoing it – using three quotes where one would do, taking readers painfully through day-by-day accounts.

But lovers of history will appreciate the revelatory story he unwinds. It has resonance too in today’s era. Indeed, we are reminded of that famous quote about being condemned to repeat the past we cannot remember.

Originally published in The National.

AUTHOR
Joan Oleck is a freelance writer based in Brooklyn, New York.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

The Saudi's who were the replacement ally have screwed the US

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Wed Sep 28, 2011 09:13 PM PDT

The Saudi's are laughing all the way to their Banks with EU help.

Since AN has made it impossible for the US & Iran to have relations and co-operate guess who's really propping up the IRI and preventing a US recovery because the US has no capability to bring their only ally under control?

If you guessed the saudi's you are correct, they are the ones who have oil at $90 when the recession is deep and America needs help.  They have the reserves to flood the market and push the price down, but with the EU and Russia wanting to contain and compete with US power and the EU and Saudi Arabia & Russia all supporting the Palestinians in an alliance together against the USA and the US having to support its proxy Israel and having to veto the palestinians the saudi's can play this game of screwng the USA on behalf of the EU and Russia (russia wants oil prices high as an exporter, EU charges 200% tax on oil so high oil means record oil taxes and money to control their economies, they benefit from it being high too).

As we say in Iran "kotakeshro az ooni keh behesh zolm kardi nemikhori,kotakeshro az baghiyeh mikhori", and so the USA is going to get beaten up and roughed up not by Iranians which they betrayed, but from the unlikely source of all their own partners saudi's, EU plus Russia, using IRI as a force to kick the USA out of the middle east, humiliated and on fire.

I wonder what 11 Air craft carrier battle groups are going to do for the USA fighting extremists in Iraq and Afghanstan?  What a joke.

So Saudi lead high oil prices, helps the IRI with a surplus of cash to stay alive and continue its nuke program which the saudi's are supposed to be against bs or else they would use the oil weapon to destroy its revenues and provide cheap oil.

The Beauty of the situation, if you can see it (through all the misinformation) is the saudi's have allied with the EU + UK + Russia to weaken US power and clip the wings of the USA.  And dumb Americans still haven't figured out that the shah was their friend and is the future to their own security as proven by them allowing his son to be killed.

The US can not deal with the saudi's until it has an ally in Iran, due to russia , uk and EU and those in power today don't have the will to have an ally in Iran since, the policy that brought IRI to power did it because IRI backwardness in their view helps the US reach its later objectives for breaking up Iran. Talk about Dreams.  If the US doesn't fix its own countrysoon it won't have the strength to break up anything other than itself, which it is doing a great job of weakening.

So they are in a catch 22.  Their own fantasies versus reality. And mistakes they are not aware of, in order to correct.

 


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

amirparviz Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:49 PM PDT

 

No wonder Nixon was brought down and disgraced. Just as was done to the Shah. Other than Americans "retire" their presidents instead of killing them. Both Nixon and Shah were great men. Both brought down by garbage.

Blame? Nixon would have made America the greatest nation. Him and Shah together were going to create a very stable world. But that was not the plan. They set them both up and ruined both nations. Jimmy Carter for USA and Khomeini for Iran.

Those who followed in USA Reagan; Bush; Clinton were no where as intelligent. Or patriotic as Nixon. The world is paying for the selfish *** who brought down these two men.


  •  
amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

What A Nonsense book, you call this history? I doubt it.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:33 PM PDT

By late 1969, Nixon was so friendly with the shah that he had granted the leader his own special oil quota. In exchange, the shah pledged to spend every cent of those additional oil revenues on US military and intelligence hardware. This worried Nixon’s aides. "It was one thing to fly the flag for the West," Cooper writes, "another to arm it to face down Iraq, India and regional rebellions, pacifying a vast swath of the Middle East and Indian Ocean. Rearmament on the scale proposed by the shah," Cooper adds, "had the potential to bankrupt Iran."

(MY NOTE, That is total nonsense bankruptcy was never a concern, US would have saved trillions and enjoyed true national security & stability, had Nixon Succeeded with Iran in creating a self sustaining and independent US Proxy that was powerful, yet never in a position of enough power to be able to betray the USA and would also secure the US interest in a way the US today has completely failed to do on its own and with all its allies/true competitors, in return for Growth and Development for Iran, This US Historian finds it difficult to admit it was the US that made a serious mistake in removing Nixon & then betraying its own ally, proof is in the result, the failure has absolutely no one that wants to be associated with it, some even try and blame the Shah for being betrayed since he's not around and he handled the situation in such a way as to make it impossible for a person to not see exactly who was at fault.)

Still, Nixon persisted, advising Iran’s lead diplomat, Ardeshir Zahedi to "tell the shah you can push [us] as much as you want [on oil prices] …" In short, the shah could "raise oil prices at will and pressure  western oil companies and consumers" –all via a back channel implemented without cost assessment or risk analysis. Who cared what happened to the real Iranians not benefiting from oil dollars? 

(MY NOTE AGAIN, The Iranians not benefitting are you kidding me? Growth and development were occurring at a rate matched by no country in history so far, education, health, housing Iran was the largest middle class in the entire middle east combined and the people enjoyed the fruits of freedom & peace too.  Had the Shah stayed for just 10 more years Iran would have been the worlds 4th economic power after the US, Germany, Japan and the only country to be an ally that the US had for real, not one it had fought in the past and would have to fight again) 

One should clue this historian into the Agony that Russia will now be able to create for the USA, which it could not if it didnt have the mullahs as allies.

The US had its precious outpost in the Middle East.

(disingenuous conclusion)

We know, of course, what happened next. In 1974, the Watergate scandal brought Nixon down and the wall of secrecy that surrounded those previously murky oil deals collapsed. On its knees, Tehran begged a $500 million loan from the US that arrived too late; and more and more talk circulated about Ayatollah Khomeini becoming a possible successor to the shah.

(NOTE Those Murky oil deals were put in place to prevent the US Policy from being based on Militarism/bases, Secret Alliances, Imperialism and Radicalism/Extremism, which the US now relies on! I guess that snce Iran was getting 75% of oil revenue unlike today 20-25% since IRANIANS were not being robbed the deals must have been MURKY, true alliances are not free you foolish historian, they have to be a mutual win/win or else they are not sustainable and leed to war, chaos and insecurity for the larger power)

(My Last Note. Can Anyone not congratulate Nixon for saving the USA from its own multinationals and special interests long enough to create a long term sustainable and attainable foreign policy that did not need Imperialism/Extremism/Militarism. At least Nixon can not be blamed for the decline of the USA today, which could not have happened had the US not betrayed the Shah, nor can Nixon be blamed for Harming/destroying for awhile conscious capitalism and at least he had America's National security in mind, unlike the Leaders of America Today, who are kidding themselves if they think America's future is getting brighter.

Get your heads out of the sand and see if you can even create sustainable growth in the next decade (if you are living in the USA, you must know that based on current alliances, economists say that is impossible) after there were zero jobs created in the usa in last decade.

If Historians can't teach the root causes of problems today, and instead try to tell people what they think the people can believe and want to hear (then what good are they?). Nixon was too smart for the USA, I doubt most Americans were willing to reach the heights he had set for American Civilization, being free of imperialism was not such a terrible path considering the alternative... or maybe it was just time for the Europeans to send their #1 competitor towards a dark Age, like they did Russia.


  •  
shushtari

vildemouse jaan

by shushtari on Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:04 AM PDT

there is no 'contract'.....it's all under the table.....the brits, french, russian, chinese, koreans all are receiving iranian oil for cheap(god knows at what price!) and in return, the akhoonds stay in power with their backing.....

whatever comes in to the coffers, most of it gets divided between the ruling thieves and ama-lez.....

It's very sad to think what would have been had the shah not pissed off the filthy brits......trillions would be saved and millions saved

you can see where the koreans are today- hyundai is kicking butt, samsung, LG, etc.    iran was so so far ahead of these guys in 1978.....imagine our country if they had left us alone!!! 


  •  
vildemose

 VPK jan, I hear

by vildemose on Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:54 AM PDT

 VPK jan, I hear you....thanks for trying to find out. It would be very interesting to find out what kind of deal Khomeini's government got with those who installed him.

Reform requires the consent of the corrupt


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Vildermose

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:38 AM PDT

 

I completely agree with you. I have been on the receiving end of this person's attacks. It got so bad Souri had to flag his posts. As to what happened to the contracts I really don't know. Wish I did but I don't. Will try to find it out.


  •  
Esfand Aashena

Vildemose "try" being funny! or take a chill pill!

by Esfand Aashena on Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:33 AM PDT

Everything is sacred


  •  
vildemose

 I forgot to mention

by vildemose on Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:29 AM PDT

 I forgot to mention anyone except 'Esfand Ashena'. Don't try to engage me because you have no credibility in my eyes. Consider yourself ignored from now on. I don't like your condescending and pompous tone either. This is not IRI.

Reform requires the consent of the corrupt


  •  
Esfand Aashena

The contract expired, finished, caput, gone w/ the wind, khalas!

by Esfand Aashena on Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:05 AM PDT

Everything is sacred


  •  
vildemose

Dear Shustari or anyone

by vildemose on Wed Sep 28, 2011 09:26 AM PDT

Dear Shustari or anyone else who knows the answer. So what replaced the oil contract that the Shah did not agree to after Khomeini's takover??? 

Reform requires the consent of the corrupt


  •  
Esfand Aashena

داریوش جان عزت زیاد!

Esfand Aashena
Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:56 AM PDT

Everything is sacred


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Shab Khosh Esfand Jaan ... Mind the Cultural Gap though ... ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:55 AM PDT



‪Fetchez La Vache

 

It can be misleading  ...

 

Ezatollah Entezami Bold Tribute To Shah’s Brother In Law Mehrdad Pahlbod on IRI TV

 

 

MON CINEMA:Dariush Mehrjui discusses "THE COW"



" A Country that loses it's Poetic Vision, is a Country which faces Death" - Saul Bellow


  •  
Esfand Aashena

داریوش جان تلفن میزنم جواب نمیدی! سوال من رو عذاب هم میدی!

Esfand Aashena
Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:46 AM PDT

Everything is sacred


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Esfand Jaan Soal Moft Kamtar Beporse Tah Javab Dorost Bedam ...

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:44 AM PDT


Otherwise I can also offer you a REGAL 'Certified Copy' of Persian Cats in English:

 

Colin Firth Presents Bahman Ghobadi's powerful film  


 

 

"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow.  


  •  
Esfand Aashena

داریوش جان درست صحبت کن ببینیم چی‌ میگی‌!

Esfand Aashena
Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:38 AM PDT

پوس دو توت یعنی‌ چی‌؟!  این حرفها قبیحه! 

Everything is sacred


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Or do you prefer 'Pas Du Tout' ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:37 AM PDT


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Nope Esfand Jaan cause the IRI doesn't need to be cursed ...

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:34 AM PDT

It is a Curse in itself ...

Khomeiny’s Hichi



Farrokhzad explains Khomeiny’s « Green Book » aka « Tozihol Massael »

 

 


Not to say an Un Iranian Oxymoron in the Land of Legitimate Kings ...

 

Words For Eternity ... 
   

 

Bonne Nuit Mon Ami ... 

 

 

"A Country that Loses it's PoeticVision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow.  


  •  
Esfand Aashena

Darius jaan are you cursing in French?! No Farance!

by Esfand Aashena on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:25 AM PDT

Everything is sacred


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Yup Mon Cher ...

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:23 AM PDT

The Qajar (or Ghajar) rulers were members of the Karagoz of the Qajars, originally themselves members of the Qarapapaqs of the larger Turkic peoples ...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_dynasty

 

You don't believe me or Milani then go ask Your other PREEEEEEZIIIIIIDEEEEEEENT MAHBOOB Edrogan who is safeguarding Your Joon Joony Republic  ... 

 

 


Erdogan:Turkey will not allow attack on Iran from its territory

 


While Your Other One is Talking Crap On a Trip to the UN ...


DUCK SOUP: Ahmadinejad & his Sandis Khor Groupies @ UN after Party in NY



Ahmadinjeadon Charlie Rose


When in Fact he should know his real place ...


FED UP WITH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: Ahmadinejad is NOT my Prime Minister !

 




LOL

 

 

 


  •  
Esfand Aashena

"First" genuine Iranian dynasty? IRI is just 17 years behind!

by Esfand Aashena on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:06 AM PDT

And which dynasty did they break the record?  Qajar?  So Qajar were not a genuine dynasty?!  Holy mother of all self-center dynasties! 

Everything is sacred


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Farouk of Egypt

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:03 AM PDT


  •  
Darius Kadivar

It isn't ... all the more that they are German stammerers ...

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 05:05 AM PDT

The Nazi Roots of the House of Windsor

 

And Besides unlike the Pahlavis (who are according to your very own favorite joon joony Jomhurykhah historian Abbas Milani were by far and by all accounts the very first Iranian dynasty of genuine Persian heritage in 600 years) they Stammer ... 

 

King's Speech: Albert meets Lionel ;0)

 


  •  
Esfand Aashena

If Brit's monarchy isn't "legit" then what monarchy ever was/is?

by Esfand Aashena on Wed Sep 28, 2011 04:58 AM PDT

Everything is sacred


  •  
Roger_Rabbit

And how do you know the Brit's monarchy is "legit"?!

by Roger_Rabbit on Wed Sep 28, 2011 04:57 AM PDT

Not that I am in favor of either of them but your criteria of legitimacy has, as you say it, a long way to go !!


  •  
Esfand Aashena

Darius jaan who is Farouk? Any relations to Umm Kolssum?!

by Esfand Aashena on Wed Sep 28, 2011 04:55 AM PDT

Everything is sacred


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Alot that's why Egyptians were better off with Farouk ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 04:55 AM PDT


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Shah got overthrown

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Sep 28, 2011 04:53 AM PDT

 

Because of exactly what Shushtari said. He did not want to renew the British oil deal. He informed the British in a meeting in 1976 and they stormed out. Saying "you will regret it'. Then put BBC to work: propaganda.

That and all their other resources. As long as Republicans specially Nixon was in charge the Shah was safe. But It just happened that Nixon got booted and a fool named Carter took over.JC already disliked the Shah and was a religious fanatic himself. With his "human rights" ideas was easily manipulated.  Then convinced Khomeini was a "saint" {a quote from his UN ambassador Andrew Young}. Then Cinema Rex suddenly burned and got blamed on the Shah! 

Next thing you know is people screaming "Khowmeini" and "Death to America". This right after getting back from the US embassy to get their student visa :-) Women who wore "Mini Joup" put on "Ro Sari" and the rest is history.


  •  
Esfand Aashena

Darius jaan what is/was the difference between Mubarak & Shah?

by Esfand Aashena on Wed Sep 28, 2011 04:39 AM PDT

Would it have made any differene if Mubarak had not called himself a "President"?  He could've made himself "king" like other kings in the Middle East, including Iran's.

I would have been ok with an Iranian monarchy if it was legit and as you so often like to refer to, a monarchy like the British.  But it wasn't!  The British monarchy koja (where) and Iranian monarchy koja?  There is just no comparison.

Pahlavi's monarchy was as much a "monarchy" as Islamic Republic is a "Republic"!  We have a long way to go, we're half way there! 

Everything is sacred


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Iraneh Shahanshahy Koja ... Sahrayeh Arabha Koja ...

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Sep 28, 2011 03:56 AM PDT

Speaking of Oil Kings ...


Diplomatic History:Shah and King Faisal discuss Future of Persian Gulf (1971)

 

How about considering the contrast on how that Wealth was distributed ( however imperfectly) and the difference of the social and economic ambitions  in both Kingdoms for a change ? ... 

 

As Saudi Arabia tries shyly to give some rights to it's other half citizens : 


Women in Saudi Arabia 'to vote and run in elections' (cnn)


Only to punish them when they go astray ...


Saudi woman to be lashed for defying driving ban (bbc)


We Were Light Years Ahead as early as the 1960's:


Women Affairs:


WOMEN GET TO VOTE: Female Crowd Gratefully Gather At Shah's Palace (1963)


A Women for All Seasons : Farokhroo Pārsā (1922-1980)


pictory: Promotional Film on Women during Pahlavi Era (1970's)


Mahnaz Afkhami The last Female Minister during the Shah's Era


Mahnaz Afkhami: A Women For All Seasons (VOA/BBC Interviews)


Women's Day: Mahnaz Afkhami Pioneer Feminist (1975)


pictory: Female Ministers in Pahlavi Era (1970's)


WOMEN RIGHTS: Princess Ashraf Chairman of Women Status Commission (1965)


Women's Day: First Women to Attend Tehran University (1940's/1950's)





Industry:


pictory: Iran's Industrial Progress-Pahlavi Era Promotional Film (1970's)


Military defense:


TOP GUN: Grumman F-14 promotional film 1970's Iran


Social Progress:


British Echo News 1973 Coverage on Pahlavi Iran’s March Towards Progress


Cultural and educational investment on the future:


Shahbanou Farah Speaks about Kanoon Institute's Legacy (VOA)


EMINENT PERSIANS:Lily AmirArjomand Managing Director of Kanoon (Andisheh TV)


pictory: Documentary film on Kanoon Institute (1973


SHIRAZ INTL ARTS FESTIVAL '69: Documentary "Sound the Trumpets Beat the Drums" (1969)



Diplomatic Corps:


DIPLOMATIC CORPS: Mehrangiz Dolatshahi First Woman Ambassador of Imperial Iran (1960)


DIPLOMATIC HISTORY: Farah and China's Zhou Enlai ( ~1972-73 )


NBC Television's Profile of Ardeshir Zahedi (Dec 1st, 1974)



I wonder what all You Jomhurykhahs have to say to justify the Legitimacy of YOUR DEVOLUTION ? ...


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


TREASON IS A MATTER OF DATES: Constitutionalist Response to a Jomhurykhah Query


If Anyone owes an Apology to Iranians 32 years on it's You Namak Nashnas Lots !


Ebrahim Golestan: "The Shah's Coronation Made Me Wanna Vomit" (BBC)


FINALLY GETTING IT RIGHT: Shirin Ebadi say's "I Don't believe in an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights"


DEATH - VERTISING ? Mehrangiz Kar Claims Husband was No More a Monarchist


VOA Doh Roozeh Aval with Abdol Karim Lahidji on the IRI Constitution


SHEKAYAT KOJA ? Akbar Ganji say's Iran has less than 1000 Political Prisoners


REPUBLICAN OFFSPRING: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in Savak Prison (1970's)


REPUBLICAN OFFSPRING: Massoud Rajavi at Tehran University during Presidential Campaign (1980)


I Rest my Case !


Words For Eternity ...

 


  •  
shushtari

oh yes.....

by shushtari on Tue Sep 27, 2011 07:57 PM PDT

what a wonderful 'analysis'!! LOL

when I read then line, 'the british decided to leave the middle east...'

I knew the rest of this would be nonsense.

these are the facts:

-the shah began to stand up the west, fighting for iran to get it's fair share of oil sales.....and did not renew the 25 year contract giving the brits another 25 years to rape iran.....that's when they decided to topple him

-as early as 1975, palestinian terrorists were training khomeini's mercenaries and assassins and planning their takeover of iran

 

and on and on...

the americans used the shah just like they used mubarak in egypt.....they got rid of him when he began to stand up for iran....

 

an idiot like khomeini would never be able to take over a vast country like iran without the help of foreigners.....this is a fact, and not a conspiracy theory.

so much for your analysis 


  •  
12next ›last »