Pictory

JahanAmin after all the Pahlavi's did for Iranians

it says so much about Iranians lack of genuine indebtedness to the late shah for doing so much good and being one of the most democratically acting leaders in the world giving rise to the largest middle class growth and 9th largest GDP in the world, that You could say such a thing, when other countries with the same opportunities did not enjoy the same.  In Your case Jahanamin, you & your family went from traveling around anywhere in the country on a donkey, to having one of the most advanced militaries in the world and a period of continuous increases in standard of living for all, to living in the free-est most prosperous country 360 around Iran for 3000 Miles.  So where is your wisdom lately????

kings are the shame of history

and the pahlavis were the shame of kings

when?

Roozbeh khan

wonder what do you mean by : struggle has not even started....

Maziar

Anglophile jan: No wonder Islamists here Love you :)

 Since you attribute every progressive movement, even Constitutional Revolution, to "Shia Islam"! 

But your sweeping ststement is absolutely incorrect and you know it, since further in your comment , you very correctly identified Shiat islam as the main source of reaction to social and political progress in our country....

Leaders Of Constitutional Revolution, Sattar Khan and Bagher Khan, did not revolt for "Shia Islam", But for constitutional democracy. The most senior Shia clreic at the time , shekh fazlolah nouri was hanged by people (shia muslems themselves!) for his opposition to the Revolution!

How about jangal Movement in Gilan? Was "shia Islam" also responsible for the "Soviet republic of Gilan"?!

Shah attacked left only because he was put there to do so. When he failed to deal with left effectively, Khomeini was put in his place, to kill tens of thousands of sosialists, communists and leftists, much to the delight of MI6.

But The story is not finished. Night is very young. Struggle has not even started....34 years of islamist fascism rule in our country has had this very positive impact in our nation to highlight the true face of this most evil "man dar avardi" ideolgy of shiat islam. I actually believe that the future of our country is very very bright. We just ahve to be pragmatic, follow our ideals,  yet  not fall into ideological traps.....

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Shirzadegan, are you Reza Pahlavi?!

I'm almost sure, yes almost sure Shirzadegan is Reza Pahlavi, writing
under an assumed name. Because, he is thanking Shahansha's army for  C.I.A. planned and preformed coup in 1953, a week short of 49 years
ago!!! It was not a fairy tail, nor was it a victory for Shah's army
nor the Iranian people. In fact, Iranian army at the time was so
infested by Toudehies communists that their revolt would have turned
Iran to Iranistan of Soviet camp! Dr. Mossedeq was never against the
monarchy, but a strong supporter of Iran's constitution.

Hamid, 

The Shah never took the left half as seriosuly as the Islamists

There is a fundamental flaw in the leftists analysis of the political motivations and fears of the Shah which is partly out of their sense of self-importance but laregly due to their ignoraqnce and deeply misunderstood knowledge of Islamic/Shiite society that had existed in Iran for nearly 14 centuries.

The Shah, however, had correctly identified the real and the number one threat to his throne: Islamic influence on the nation. I have written and commented about this many times before but I am attacked by all sides and factions, except the Islamists. I know for fact that the Shah had no serious fear of the forces of the left as he knew perfectly well that in a country with a deeply rooted Islamic culture they (the left) will never succeed.One fatva from a grand Aytollah or even a junior Aaytollah was enough to outroot the left from the land for decades to come.

All his other Islamic pretentions can be correctly explained if you understand his underlying fears of the Islam. It was simply convenient that as the head of an Islamic state he could give the Islamic institutions further freedom to operate for as long as they acted as a barrier against the minor forces if the left. He was happy to go along with Shiite aspirations as long as his modernisation programes went ahead unhindered but not when they became an obstacle to his plans he would (very cautiously) resisted or remved them.

 The speech by Khomeini in this blog which was delivered from exile was such a threat. But once Khomeini made such threats from Qom, he was respectfully arrested and despatched to exile. This would not have happened under a secular dictator like Saddam Hussein. He had silenced such noises by executing the noise makers. But not the Shah.

Let me sum it by stating a historic fact:

Shiite Islam was responsible for ALL the major political developments of Iran since and including constitutional revolution:

Islamic influence was responsible for the constitutional movement

• Islamic infuence installed Reza Shah as king (instead of a president).
• Islamic influence installed Mosaddegh-os-Saltanen as a PM.
• Islamic influence re-installed Mosaddegh-os-Saltaneh as PM (30 Tir 1331).
• Islamic influence removed Mosadegh-os-Saltaneh (28 Mordad) and re-installed the Shah.
• Islamic influence removed the Shah (1979).

Islamic influence remain the greatest challenge to the most potent force to be overcome by the democracy seekers to this day. Why? Because Islam unlike Christianity has a direct claim on running the state (listen to Khoemini's speech here).

Regards

A.

دو حقّه باز تاریخی

مصدق و خمینی هر دو قول آینده

بهتر برای ایرانی‌‌ها میدادند. یکی‌ میخواست

جمهوری دمکراتیک بشود و دیگری میخواست

جمهوری اسلامی. جمهوری اسلامی را دیدیمم ولی‌ ان یکی‌

در نطفه سر کوب شد. تشکر از ارتش شاه هنشاهی

I agree with Massoud, why?

I'm old enough to remember 1953 coup in Iran, days of Dr. Mossadeq and the short lived freedom in his government. Please, don't try to re-write history, once Shah woke up to reallity, there was nothing left to do, but to watch Iran's slow death. P;ease read this post by Mr. Mehran Adib, a former colonel(sarhang tamam) in Shah's army and a member of national front.

//ehterameazadi.blogspot.de/2012/08/blog-post_565.html#more

Hamid 

RG

Shah Never took the mullah's seriously, up until the end he called them backward and illiterate. (which they are but that doesnt make them stupid and benign)

He was always more afraid of Tudeh and their Soviet paymasters.

in the 70's the struggle of the epoch was between the Communist East and Democratic West
not between the West and Islam as it is today.

The entire security apparatus of the Shah was built to avert a Red/Left threat not a black extreme right one.

Here my question to Anglophile:

Why didn't Shah arrest Khomeini when he was making these kind of noises against him?

Why was shah so severe on Secular Left forces (Remember Golsorkhi? He made similar stance against shah that Khomeini is making here....) and left scums like khomeini to run around free?  

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

عذر بد تر از گناه

وقتی‌ دختر عبد الرحمن برومد چند روز پیش در مصاحبه خود با دهقانپور (صدای آمریکا) به صراحت می‌گوید که پس از خواندن نظریه ولایت فقیه به هنگام اقامت خمینی در پاریس وحشت می‌کند که چگونه چنین کسی را جبهه ملی‌ حمایت می‌کند و از داماد خمینی (اشراقی) می‌خواهد که سوالاتی را به نظر خمینی برساند و جواب بگیرد. خمینی به سوالات پاسخ نمیدهد. و اشراقی می‌گوید در حال حاضر صلاح نیست!! آنوقت بعضی‌ مصدق الهی‌های معلوم الحال در این سایت مذبوحانه ادعا میکنند که سنجابی اطلاع نداشته!!! چون اینترنت نبوده!!! واقعا تهوع آور است که سطح  آکادمیک در بعضی‌ کالج‌های آمریکا تا به این حد به ابتذال کشیده شده است.

اگر سنجابی و فروهر و غیره و ذالک تا به این حد ناا مطلع از آن چه بودند که از آن حمایت میکردند، حیف از زباله دان تاریخ که این دونان بدان سپرده شدند.

Ali P

AP: I
am just wondering, when Forouhar was watching his wife being murdered
by the Islamist thugs, when Sanjabi, crippled by his backache, was
leaving Iran in the middle of the night, on a jackass, did they miss the
days, that as members of the opposition, they would get summoned every
once in a while, get interogated, spend a few days in jail, and then get
released and go back to their jobs as head of the Iranian bar, and as
an attorney?

MK: My guess is "Yes."

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

AP: When Sanjabi was dying in exile, did he think that
unlike the Shah's time, where only a handful Iranians were in exile and
had to carry foreign passports (like Ghotbzadeh), there were now millions
who could not take it anymore and had to get the hell out?

MK: That is an objective statement and the answer is "yes."

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

AP: Did
they miss the days that political executions happened only in extreme
cases, and so few, that many of us know all the names by heart? The days
that no kid, no woman, and no old man was executed were gone, and the
new Leader, they helped bring to power, had no hesitation in killing
hundreds, daily.

MK: Yes.

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

AP: Did this bother Sanjabi?

MK: Of course.

==================================　

AP: I wonder what Sanjabi and Forouhar were thinking in the last moments of their lives.

MK: Ooooooooh Shit.

=============================　

AP: Did they make a mistake?

MK: Not any that they could do which would have prevented the disaster. They did all they could. The Shah did NOT allow any solution. But of course JM made a number of mistakes in 1978 even within the context of what was known at that time.

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

AP: Somewhere, somehow, did something go wrong?

MK: Yes, yes.

============================　

AP: Was this disaster inevidable?

MK: No.

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

AP: Did they think they chose the right path?

MK: They knew they made several major mistakes.

AP: As they were taking the last breath, did they think of the man who warned us all, and predicted "the dictatorship of na'layn is worse than the dictatorship of boots?"

MK: Probably "yes."

AP: You say:"It is amazing that some would demand that Sanjabi should ignore the
ACTUAL fascistic actions of the Shah and somehow been able to PREDICT
what in the future Khomeini would have done."

No one is demanding that. At least I am not.

MK: Thanks.

I see where you are going. Let me put it this way:

You are a secular liberal democrat nationalist. There are two dudes: Dude A and Dude B.

Dude A:

* is fully subservient to foreign powers thus undermining the sovereignty and national independence of your country.

* has killed and jailed members and leaders of your party (e.g. Fatemi, Mossadegh, Karimpour Shirazi, Col. Sakhaee, ....).

* claims that he is the Shadow of God

* says that the 12th Imam talks to him and provides him intelligence of the events before they occur

* has already BOMBED the homes and offices of you and bunch of your friends

Dude B

* an old religious man who seems sincere and thus afraid of hell and wishing to go to heaven (and presumably would not cheat, murder, rape, ...)

* condemns dictatorship

* praises democracy, freedom, human rights, constitution

* surrounds himself with "liberals" such as Ghotbzadeh (former JM and current NA) , Yazdi (NA), Bani Sadr (former JM).

In conclusion, there is absolutely no doubt that Khomeini’s rule has been a zillion times worse than the rule of the Shah. No sane person would dispute that. The question is considering the FACT that the Shah never abdicated and was NOT willing to leave as late as Nov-Dec 1978, what in the world could one do. By January 1979, it was TOO LATE to save the situation. Of course, knowing what we know TODAY, the answer to the question of what to do if we are send back would be lets do what Bakhtiar did (and lets see what would happen then). I am not certain what would have transpired had Bakhtiar succeeded. Considering the fact that the Shah did not abdicate, the armed forces were gong ho fascistic and anti-democratic, my guess is that at best the situation would return to the way things where in Nov-December 1978 (and now Khomeini would lead and no JM folks in the opposition because by their acceptance of being part of govt, which stablized the situation and caused the Shah to come back totally lost any credibility with the masses). At worst, the armed forces in resistance to the armed forces and Shah dismissing the JM cabinet, there would be mass uprising and then the Shah or the armed forces would massacre over 100,000 people.

Perhaps, the people and the intellectuals needed to live under fundamentalist rule to learn the harm of mixing religion and politics. Perhaps, our people suffer from historical amnesia and they do not learn, and thus repeatedly go from one dictatorial extreme to another dictatorial extreme. It appears that many have forgotten the horrific situation under the monarchists because the fundamentalist have inflicted pain and suffering worse than what preceded it.

The solution, in my view, is avoid ALL dictatorial system (monarchy, fundamentalism), and instead work for democracy. Another lesson, do NOT believe the words of those who advocate a dictatorial institution (vf or monarch). Demand ALL positions to be elected. Do NOT accept any one person or family or strata to have any privileges and permanent positions.

I think the Iranian people deserve democracy. They were oppressed and fooled by the monarchists and fundamentalists. The only solution is to make the anti-democratic groups as weak as possible and the pro-democracy groups as strong as possible. That way, the Iranian people would not be at the mercy of this or that dictatorial systems.

My 2 cents,

Masoud

P.S. I did not use the word "nokar"once. Is it better?

My response to Masoud

Masoud jaan:

 The respect is mutual.

True. There was no
internet. But that doesn't mean there was no communication. Opposition
groups to the Shah were aware of each other's history, ideologies and
activities. Some found mutual grounds and collaberated. The communist
groups, believing in armed struggle, never worked with, say, "Nehzat
Azadi". And that's the way it's supposed to be.

Khomeini, and
Khomeini's faction in 1953 opposed Dr. Mossadegh and  JM. Ten years
later, in the unrest following Khomeini's speech of Khordad 1342,neither
JM, nor any other secular group supported him. Khomeini's main beef
with the Shah, at the time, was granting women's right.

(By the way, you mentioned the word "nokar" about four times, describing the Shah. You have a habit of that. It does not- I am here to tell you- help your argument; it actually drops the level of dialogue)

" I didn't
know about the guy, because there was no internet" excuse may work in
1972. But we are talking about 1978. You are the leader of JM, the heir
to Mossadegh. The man is 70! Where has he been? You can't find a copy of "velayateh-fagheeh", or his
brilliant "tozeeh-ol-masaa'el"??

We expect statements like
:"Ali was good..we want an Ali-like state...Ali's justice is God's
justice..we want a state where everyone is equal...we want Islam to
prevail" to fool some simple-minded people- as it did- but not a secular
jurist who sits as the Chair of JM!

You say:"It is amazing that some would demand that Sanjabi should ignore the
ACTUAL fascistic actions of the Shah and somehow been able to PREDICT
what in the future Khomeini would have done."

No one is demanding that. At least I am not.

I
am just wondering, when Forouhar was watching his wife being murdered
by the Islamist thugs, when Sanjabi, crippled by his backache, was
leaving Iran in the middle of the night, on a jackass, did they miss the
days, that as members of the opposition, they would get summoned every
once in a while, get interogated, spend a few days in jail, and then get
released and go back to their jobs as head of the Iranian bar, and as
an attorney?

When Sanjabi was dying in exile, did he think that
unlike the Shah's time, where only a handful Iranians were in exile and
had to carry foreign passports (like Ghotbzadeh), there were now millions
who could not take it anymore and had to get the hell out?

Did
they miss the days that political executions happened only in extreme
cases, and so few, that many of us know all the names by heart? The days
that no kid, no woman, and no old man was executed were gone, and the
new Leader, they helped bring to power, had no hesitation in killing
hundreds, daily. Did this bother Sanjabi?

I wonder what Sanjabi and Forouhar were thinking in the last moments of their lives.

Did they make a mistake?

Somewhere, somehow, did something go wrong?

Was this disaster inevidable?

Did they think they chose the right path?

As they were taking the last breath, did they think of the man who warned us all, and predicted "the dictatorship of na'layn is worse than the dictatorship of boots?"

Yours,

Ali P.

Harpi Ashraf and Shah-han-shah were both peaceful & principled

Neither would act like a ganster/criminal/dictator just to survive.  So it was not a question of courage of 1 person, but the failure of an entire nation, deceived by Khomeini, JM, West, Commies etc the strongest and most impactful of all these being the West. 

//iranian.com/main/blog/amirparvizforsecu...

so this is what they need to do to mend their own mistakes.

This is what we have to deal with thanks to Khomeini, JM, Comies

//iranian.com/main/blog/amirparvizforsecu...

........

shah was alaki moslem

And khomeinni was alaki Irani!!

And that front is still Alaki Melli!!

Maziar

Dear Ali P

Here is my answer:

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/ali-p-khomeini-shah-and-sanjabi

Best,

Masoud

Dear Masoud

Wow!

 Khomeini seems to have the same vision as Dr. Mossadegh!

They sound the same, don't they?

How could Dr. Bakhtiar ever not side with this progressive mind? 

No wonder JM had T-shirts printed:

"If you liked Dr. Mossadegh,...you'd LOVE Iman Khomeini"

Bravo Sanjabi and associates.

If only ...

The Shah had balls as big as Ashraf's, he would take care of this Kesafat Rozeh Khoon in 1964, 1971, 1979, you name it.

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland