ravanvajahan.com

Dear Amir

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/question-establishing-republic-during-25-28-mordad-1332#comment-463958

Hooshang:

With all your knowledge and language proficiency you seem to have difficulty understanding a simple definition. What you have presented are different forms or examples of a civil society, whereas the excerpt from Wikipedia defines what it is.

Lets see how far Mosaddeghollahis rave and rant?

Sorry! Come again!

So if these civil institutions of our society were being created in spite of the Pahlavi’s then why we are we blaming them for destroying what they did not have any control over. Furthermore how come these institutions did not come to existence over the previous 400 years when the same thing was happening in Europe?

And why this process even deteriorated drastically under the reign of IRI.

I am sorry mate but you are trying to have it both ways by attempting to claim all the credit and denying any responsibilities for your cock-ups and you are not going to get away with it, not here mate, not under my watch

You see? Your problem is that you only see the world in a black or white context and hence are forgetting to bring into count all the social and historical complexities involved in such processes. More importantly in order to avoid your responsibility and more importantly to avoid admitting your devastating errors you are still looking for escape goats and someone to offload your guilt

So please mate save your ridicules empty rhetoric for someone who does not actually know how the real world works and does not have a clue about the social, economical and cultural state of this country at the end of Ghajaar era

Dear Aryo

Maybe I was not as clear as I should be. I am not opposed to sharing the oil wealth. But I want to engage you in a discussion here. So please hear me out and tell me what you find wrong. I will put them item by item:

• Oil nationalization put us against England. In a fight we were not prepared to win. If we were more powerful fine but we just did not have the power at the time. How do you propose we should have dealt with it?
• It bothers me to see Iranian people rely too much on oil. I want us to stand on our two feet not use oil as a crutch to carry us. Wasn't it the mentality that allowed Khomeini to tell us "free everything thanks to oil money"?

Nature of Civil Society is not a normative one

Do we really need  CIVICUS's definitions to tell us that back in the 1940's in Iran we had:

-active civic formation

-independent newspapers

-various political parties

-workers' unions

- women and students organizations

.....

Reckon our own history is not legitimate, untill it is verified by the definitions of others! 

Ali P.

This devision of the people to two groups of "good guys" and "bad guys", reminds us all, of the IRI's rheterics: Right v. Wrong...Muslims v. Infidels.

Yes the division stuff is never helpful because no one is pure good or bad. Other than imaginary "devil" and "angel" which do fit any humans. People by nature are in between. This is just intolerance of other ideas.

Now imagine we get "democracy" and the vote goes the other way. How do you think our friends like the professor or some Marxists react. Do you think they will say "OK you won; we go into opposition and try again". Or do you think they cry foul and become violent. Stomp their feet demanding another election. I somehow doubt they will accept the "bad:" guys taking power even for one term. I hope they accept it but somehow I doubt it will happen.

Pulling down the statutes of the King, and him leaving the country, may have made some political activists happy, but made millions of urban and rural Iranians who-rightfully or wrongfully- always wanted, needed, and rallied behind, a Shah- any Shah- nervous. 

Yes. My grandmother cried both in 1953 and 1979 when Shah left. She was born in some village; never politically active and only spoke Farsi. She adored the Shah; prayed and fasted but was not a radical. Political activists do not understand these people. They think everyone is like them all committed to the "ideology". They are wrong. If we do get democracy the activists are in for a big surprise. When they see how few people really are for their "cause" whatever that may be. 

Definition Of Civil Society!

Definitions often run into difficulty when they are applied universally across social and cultural divides. As part of their research on the state of civil society in over 50 countries around the world, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, has adopted the following definition as means of dealing with this issue "the arena, outside of the family, the state, and the market where people associate to advance common interests." Wikipedia

Dear VPK

I am afraid here is where we apart company.

Oil nationalisation was a good thing and in fact that was perhaps the only service that Mosaddegh did to this country.

But it was not enough. The process of nationalization was completed when Shah founded the OPEC and built the Abadan refinery and Ahvaaz petrochemical plant.

In fact most of the reforms and construction of the country’s infra structure that happened in Pahlavi’s era was with that oil money. Otherwise we were not a country of manufacturers or proper tax payers.

Shah was using this money to push us that way but even he was too impatient and did too much too soon and that was the fatal mistake

I am sorry but as mush as I respect you and agree with most of your comments, but your logic is a bit band-tommooni here. As by resorting to another extreme you are actually doing more damage than good.

Regardless of how we would have used than oil money and what effect it would have on our expectations. This was still our money and no one can just steal a persons money or a nations wealth and justify their action by accusing that nation  of just not deserving it.

This is an insult to all Iranians

Civil Societies are created despite of dictators not because of

them.

The civil society in Iran of 40's was created after reza shah was kicked out by his masters. 

Civil societies are incompatiable with dictatorship.

Dai Jan Napeleon

Jeesh darm damet garm ras migi. Man ino rajeh be sefarate Ingilis nemidonestam vali mantegi benazar miyad. Az babam porsidam onam goft in doroste.

Oil nationalization

the article rightly points out oil nationalization does not mean democracy. They are two different things and have no relation. Or worse it damaged prospects of democracy and put it back.

In fact I say oil nationalization was a mistake. It was a blow against democracy. Evn if Mossadegh was devoted to democracy oil nationalization wss a great mistake. Here are the reasons and I want to see if anyone refutes them without insults:

• It put Iranian parliament against Britain and set of a confrontation. This was against a power we were hard pressed to prevail against. Nobody in the right mind picks that kind of fight.
• Above would force anyone to undemocratic measures to remain in power. If Mossadgh was to hold power he needed to become repressive. Just as the Shah then became.
• Worst of all it made Iranian people feel entitled to free money. that we somehow got a "god" given right to live off oil. This set the stage for lies Khomeini made. About free electricity; homes and so on. 

Nokar?

I heard this accusation of being a nokar from when I was a kid. What defines a nokar to you people? It sounds like you call anyone not belligerent "do it alone" a nokar. But people working together are nokar.

By this definition hostage takers where not nokar. But Shah and even Bakhtiyar become nokar. So all the advancements are done by nokars. All the trouble we got in from losing respect and 9 billion. to war are by not nokars.

How many of you work for Western organizations. If you work for a university and take American grants does that make you nokar? If you have American "tabeiyat" are you nokar of America? Why don't you burn your passport. This is ridiculous.

Masoud jaan

Masoud jaan;

You say:

" On the one side we have Mossadegh and JM. Later Tudeh also played a mixed role.

On the other side, the CIA, MI6, the Shah, who had gathered support from
the Shia clerics (Ayatollah Kashani, Behbahani, Falsafi, Brujerdi,
Khomeini), and fundamentalist forces (e.g. Fadaian Islam)'

This devision of the people to two groups of "good guys" and "bad guys", reminds us all, of the IRI's rheterics: Right v. Wrong...Muslims v. Infidels.

You well know, in real world, it does not work like that.

I think you are underestimating the popularity of monarchy, embodied in a young, pre-SAVAK, pre-Rastakheez, pre-28 Mordad, Mohammad Reza Shah.

Monarchy is a very old institution in Iran. An institution- whether many of us like it or not- without which, Iran- the way we know it today- would not have existed.

The same could be said about Shiite Islam. Without it, geographical Iran would have existed, but not the way it exists today.

33 years of IRI may have taken it's toll on Shiite Islam in today's Iran, but try torching a mosque, or disrespecting, say, Imam Reza, and, other than a slim anti-religeous minority, the Iranian on the street gets nervous; doesn't like it.

Read the free newspapers and writings of the 1940's of Iran. No one is accusing MRP of being a nokar-as you put it- or a dictator. Just because some British agent reports to his boss that "His Excellency listens to us" won't do it for me. Show me a disctatorial conduct, or two, and then I consider it.

The MRP of 1941 was young, shy,handsome, educated, liberal, and very popular. His image at the time reminds me of today's Prince William of England.

Of course there were those who inherently hated the Shah of Iran, but that level of hatred against the young Shah was just not justified.

Ordinary man on the street was not happy with the situation in the weeks before 28 mordad. Pulling down the statutes of the King, and him leaving the country, may have made some political activists happy, but made millions of urban and rural Iranians who-rightfully or wrongfully- always wanted, needed, and rallied behind, a Shah- any Shah- nervous.

Iran may have been ripe and ready for a regime change in 1979, but, any way you look at it, it was not in 1953. 

Yours,

Ali P.

Hoshang/Masoud

Hoshang jaan So let me see if I am getting this right

 You are stating that

“Which was one of the most advanced compared to any other country, during the 40's.

This Civil Society was the true embodiment of democracy in Iran and the medium through which the rule of the people, Mardom Salary, democracy was supposed to be institutionalized in Iran, not just through Mosaddegh or Majlis or any other single individual or institution. “

Just remember that the era that you are talking about was when Reza Shah was ruling Iran

  Now! Am I making a mistake here or are you actually implying (confessing) that Reza Shah was a Democrat and his rein was actually the most democratic time in Iran history?

Otherwise how can a dictator allow the most democratic era with unprecedented democratic institutions to prevail under his reign.

Please mate just make up your mind and stop winging.  And Masoud Khan you are saying:

“1. Iran had one of the most vibrant civil societies in Asia from 1905. We had wonderful anjomans during the constitutional revolution. This included journalists, and women’s groups that were struggling for women’s rights”

Are we talking about the same country here? As I remember from reading the history and talking to my grandparents before Kashfe Hejaab women were not even allowed to come to the street without being accompanied by a man.

Are we talking about the same Ghajaars here, who gunned the Majlis (by Mohammad Ali Shah)   Are you actually so Weak to call Ghajaars a democratic monarchy and forget that they gave away most of Iranian territory thought different shameful treaties such as Golestaan and Torkemanchai. Are you actually telling me that you are willing to close your eyes to all that treasons just to dodge your responsibility and avoid admitting to your mistake. Insteat you attempt to draw an imaginary picture that did not even exist in Europ at the time. Do you really think we are all as Bisavaad as you? How PATHETIC!  

Well my friend the only Nokar of ones own arrogance that I see here is actually YOU.

You see mate? This  issue is and has for a long time been our most fundamental problem as a nation. “We do not and could not make any mistake” that is why all over our modern history we have been looking for escape goats. while repeating the same old mistakes. 

In fact even Mosaddegh was lucky that you were not around during his time

Otherwise I would have gladly bet my bottom dollar that you at the side of first disagreement would have accuse him of being a Nokar of Hezbe Toodeh and USSR

Dear Masoud,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. I do have one question. You state: 

"And then hopefully, elections for a Constituent Assembly to write a constitution for a democratic secular republic."

What is the evidence that Mosaddeq himself intended to do that, i.e. to abolish the monarchy in favor of a republic? 

The propose of lying to Iran's history

"Basically, the Pahalvi state was a the colonial subjugation of Iran." Mashood kazemzadeh

Iran has never been colony, neither Reza Khan. Colony means Nokar. We have never been Nokar. The writer knowingly or unknowinly making mistake between Iran and country of India. Indians were Nokar of Brits. Not Iranians. That is big insult to all Iranians. Reza Khan's speech made brits people's pants turn to yellow. He is well known to have that type of personality. Very authoritative character.  Nokar? what an stupid remark to our king and what an stupid insult to our people.  Under shah's smart leadership,  we used to have Filipino women as a Nokar in Iranian families back in 70's, but Iranians have never been nokar of brits. Shah smart leadership brought a lot of wealth and prosperity to our country. Iranian used to import Nokar from Filipeans to serve in Iranian families. Many Filipeano Nokar in Iran back in 70's. But Iranians have never been Nokar of Brits. What an insult.  

At this critical moment of our history, our beloved country is under political and possibly military attack by foreign powers. Crown Reza Pahlavi is the only one who can unifies all Iranians and defend our rights in international community. Such a lie as Iran had been Nokar of Brits serve stinky mullahs to stay longer on power. It only help mullahs, nothing else. Any stigma against Pahlavi dynasty makes the ruling mullahs stronger. That is it. Crown Reza Pahlavi is the only opposition who can unite all mullah's opponents under one flag of shir-o-khorsheed and defend our rights in international community. Any article aimed to destroy Pahlavi image in poeple's mind serves survive of stinky mullahs. All patriatic Iranians should NOT be silent about lies and fabrication of Iran history. Speak out my friends.

                           GOAL : RESTORING MONARCHY

On the Pahlavi Crushing of Iranian Civil Society

Joubin,

1. Iran had one of the most vibrant civil societies in Asia from 1905. We had wonderful anjomans during the constitutional revolution. This included journalists, and women’s groups that were struggling for women’s rights. Chinese historians credit the 1911 Revolution in China to their learning from and being inspired by Iranian journals, and revolution in 1905-1911.

Our women even picked up arms and fought in the defence of Tabriz in 1911.

It was Reza Shah that used massive violence that crushed the civil society in Iran. Reza Shah closed newspapers, women’s organizations, various civil society organizations, etc.

2. The same with the fascistic savage policies of Mohammad Reza Shah. The Shah savagely crushed civil society organizations such as newspapers, political parties, labor unions, teachers’ associations, etc. The Shah do terribly atomized and so brutally disarticulated our civil society that there were no other civil society groups to gather the people except the masjeds and their akhonds. The Shah crushed the university students and all the political parties. The people could not meet and organize anything under the Shah. There was arrest, torture, and killings at the hands of the Shah’s SAVAK.

MK

Amir

Amir: Since one of the lines of reasoning being taken is that the Shah was acting contrary to the 1906 constitution by dismissing Mosaddeq, then is it fair to ask whether Mosaddeq was acting according to the constitution by dismissing the Majles and calling a referendum? In other words, did the 1906 constitution give the Prime Minister that authority?

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

MK:

Dear Amir,

The Shah was acting contrary to the Constitution from the getgo. The evidence is solid that from 1941, the Shah had gone to the Americans and the British and telling them that they should support him to turn the constitutional system into a one-man dictatorship. The Shah would be a dictator and he would support their interests in Iran. The evidence shows that the British were fully in support of turning Iran into a dictatorship by the Shah. Under FDR and Truman, many argued that the U.S. should support a democratic Iran. Unfortunately, by the Eisenhower administration, the American were convinced by the British to abolish independence and democracy in Iran and support a tyrannical puppet. The archival documents is solid and overwhelming. Please read the seminal article by Habib Ladjevardi cited in my first post.

One gives a constitution democratic legitimacy by holding a referendum. We can hold a referendum and declare monarch abolished. We can hold another referendum and declare the vf regime abolished. Referendum is the way for the people to use their votes to make change in a non-violent manner.

The 1906 Constitution did not say that one could not hold a referendum to dismiss the Majles.

Now to how the referendum was conducted. The Iranian people were struggling to gain and consolidate our independence. On the one side we have Mossadegh and JM. Later Tudeh also played a mixed role.

On the other side, the CIA, MI6, the Shah, who had gathered support from the Shia clerics (Ayatollah Kashani, Behbahani, Falsafi, Brujerdi, Khomeini), and fundamentalist forces (e.g. Fadaian Islam).

The enemies were using all sorts of illegal methods, including kidnaping, torturing, and murdering Gen. Afshartoos, the Head of the Police. They were spreading lies. They had earlier made assassinations attempts at the our Foreign Minister Dr. Fatemi, and had on Dr. Mossadegh.

The CIA was using its great financial resources to spread lies such as Dr. Mossadegh was Bahai, Jewish, Communist, etc.

So, the conduct of the referendum was conducted under such conditions of the reactionary anti-democratic tyrannical forces using all sorts of illegal and unethical methods.

In conclusion, the struggle was a gigantic struggle for Iran’s independence, freedom, and democracy. And we lost. And that is why the lukewarm democracy was crushed by the forces of tyranny and savagry in1953. Had the Iranian people who wanted democracy won in 1953, there would have been new elections for a new Majles. And then hopefully, elections for a Constituent Assembly to write a constitution for a democratic secular republic. Our people have suffered tyranny for 58 years because of that horrible day when we lost our independence, freedom, lukewarm democracy, and dignity. The following 58 years have been years of shame, tear, and brutal tyranny.

Hopefully, soon, we can establish democracy, freedom, and human rights in our beloved Iran.

Best,

Masoud

@MK The query put to the

@MK

The query put to the other poster (referencing General Razmara) was raised due to the claim that Iran in the 40s enjoyed an exemplary "civil" society.  Here on planet Earth, 40s Iran appears to be reflective of a violently contentious society.

Regardless, thank you for the excerpts of Homa Katouzian's "scholarly" book.   (I suppose we live in an age that "journalism" is reporting anonymous sources, and historians repeat gossip.)

The query put to you remains. (I picked Japan as the most robust example of an Asian nation attempting to assert sovereignty and self determination in face of Western hegemony.)

Thank you. 

If I may ask....

Since one of the lines of reasoning being taken is that the Shah was acting contrary to the 1906 constitution by dismissing Mosaddeq, then is it fair to ask whether Mosaddeq was acting according to the constitution by dismissing the Majles and calling a referendum? In other words, did the 1906 constitution give the Prime Minister that authority? Perhaps, an analogy might be if Richard Nixon had been impeached and had instead called a referundum allowing people to vote "Yes" or "No" on his continuing in office (I know that the analogy is highly imperfect, but the bottom line is that if one aspires to be a constitutionalist, then one should expect all parties involved to act in accordance with the constitution).

My other question is: what was the conduct of that referendum? Is it not correct that there were separate ballot boxes for "Yes" and "No" votes and that the "Yes" vote received around 99%, which is always a suspect outcome? 

Roozbeh jaan

Roozbeh jaan,

I am working on an article on Khomeini and his role during the CIA coup, his support for the Shah between 1953 and 1961.  Khomeini's only began to oppose the Shah in 1961-63 due to the lane reform and female franchise.  Khomeini opposed female vote and opposed the land reform.  Khomeini opposed the Shah from the ultra reactionary position.  Khomeini did not have any problem with the CIA coup.  Actually Khomeini was allied with Ayatollah Kashani who was a main pillar of the coup as well as the Fadain Islam.

It is a great article.

Best regards,

Masoud

Khomeini Against Mossadegh And Support for Kashani and Coup

Darius,

YOU support Khomeini. And I support Mossadegh. This is called debate. On this issue, monarchists and fundamentalists are the same.

Khomeini on the CIA coup and his support for Kashani and opposition to Mossadegh. From Khomeini’s own words:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ6NXRLKsWs

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Killed Gen. Razmara

Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power in Iran (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1990), pp. 82-84.

Professor Katouzian is widely regarded as one of the very top scholars of Iran. In my opinion, Professor Katouzian is the number 1 scholar of Iran. He is currently at the University of Oxford. The following are from his book:

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

Musaddiq having thus refused to co-operate, the shah and his friends began to think of other means of dealing with the fearsome general.

Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951 while attending a funeral service at a mosque in Tehran. The self-confessed assassin was Khalil Tahmasibi, a member of the Fada’iyan-e Islam....

Immediately after the assassination, Sayyed Zia had confided in his friends that he believed that the shah was involved in the incident. The Sayyed had related that was with the shah when Alam – who had accompanied Razmara to the mosque where he was shot dead– had hurriedly arrived at the palace, and joyfully told the shah: ‘They killed him and we are relieved.’ ....

However, Colonel Musavvar-Rahmai’s detailed discussion of the event in his recent memoirs had left little room for speculation that the plot had had sides to it. Thus he wrote:

"An army sergeant, in civilian clothes, was chosen for the deed... He had been told to shoot and kill Razmara with a Colt, the moment Tahmasebi began to shoot... Those who had examined the wounds in Razmara’s body were in no doubt that he had been killed by a Colt buller, not by the bullet of a weak gun."

Furthermore, Musavvar-Rahmani relates his conversations with Colonel Daihimi shortly after the event, and the letter from Daihimi to the shah which the latter had read out to him, ending with the following words (which Rahmani emphasizes he is paraphrasing from memory): ‘As Your Majesty knows very well, no one had a greater role in getting rid of General Razmara than Mr [Asadullah] Alam and this servant.’

　================================

the rest are my writing 

The evidence is quite solid on most aspects of the assassination.

1. We know for 100% certitude that Alam asked Razmara to go to the Mosque (Masjed Shah) on 16 Esfand 1329.

2. We know for 100% certitude that at the same time, Khalil Tahmasebi and an Army Sargent with a Colt arrive at the same time. Even the IRI’s site for Navab Safavi admits to this.

3. The liaison between the darbar and Fadaian Islam was Seyyed Zia. Alam and Zia had been working for MI6 for a long time.

4. Shah was terrified of Gen. Razmara and was working hard to get rid of him. The Shah asked Mossadegh to become prime minister in order to undermine Razmara, an offer which Dr. Mossadegh refused.

5. We have evidence that Col. Daihimi was asked by Alam to organize the assassination. Col Daihimi discusses this with the Shah. Col. Daihimi says that an Army Sargent was assigned to shoot Gen. Razmara if Khalil Tahmaseni’s assassination did not work. The evidence is that the wounds on Razmara indicate that the mortal wound did not come from the weak gun by Tahmasebi, but by a powerful gun like Colt (the kind used by the Sargent sent by Alam).

Based on the evidence, Mohammad Reza Shah and Alam decide to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam personally brings Gen. Razmara to the place where he was killed. Alam also has Col. Daihimi send an Army Sargent with a Colt to be present and ordered to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam has Seyed Zia to coordinate Khalil Tahmasebi to be present and assassinate Gen. Razmara. Tahmasebi proudly confesses that he killed Gen. Razmara. At least three shots were fired. How many of the shots are from Tahmasebi’s weak gun and how many from Alam’s Army Sargent’s Colt are not known.

Mohammad Reza Shah, like Reza Shah, had assassinated many powerful individuals. There are many "theories" on Reza Shah killed soooooooooo many of his own lieutenants. One speculation was that because Reza Shah was a heavy opium uses, that might have caused him to become paranoid and kill his own top aids. One top scholar, Professor Stephanie Cronin, argues that Reza Shah’s heavy use of opium many not be the explanation of why he killed sooooo many of his own supporters. Professor Cronin argues that Reza Shah was getting old and he believed that his son was too young and inexperinces and that his own powerful lieutenants might make a coup and get rid of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Therefore, Reza Shah killed all those who MIGHT one day undermine his son. See Stephanie Cronin, Tribal Politics in Iran: Rural Conflict and the New State, 1921-1941 (London and New York: Routledge, 2007).

The following is on page 173 of Cronin book:

The shah’s fear of assassination had become very visible from at least the mid-1920s and these fears only heightened with time. By the early 1930s he had become dominated by a sense that his own life and the future of his dynasty were in danger. Although he had little concern about any rival to himself, he was extremely conscious of the vulnerability of the succession, owning to the Crown Prince’s youth and weakness. His own health was suffering, his use of opium taking its toll, his morale further damaged by the attitudes and behaviour of those surrounding him, and he became morbidly preoccupied with the real or imagined ambitions of those closest to the court.

In conclusion, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah have a long history of killing other powerful individuals. In order to avoid responsibility for killing them, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah made them look like suicide in prison, or assassination by other groups.

when a so called scholar

when a so called scholar behaves like a little kid

When Iran Lost Its Independence and Freedom, and Democracy

1. Referendum is a democratic, legitimate manner to dismiss a parliament in order to hold new elections for a new parliament.

2. The reason that Dr. Mossadegh wanted to dismiss the Majles was to prevent the Shah from implementing the CIA-MI6 plan for the coup. The CIA and British were bribing many members of the Majles to vote against Mossadegh.

According to the main interpretation of the 1906 Constitution, the Shah could only dismiss or appoint a Prime Minister after the vote of the Majles. Indeed, if a monarch could appoint and dismiss prime minsters at his own will, then this is called absolute monarchy, and not a constitutional monarchy. The 1906 constitution was based on the Belgium constitution, which itself was the written form of the British system. In the British system, the monarch can NOT appoint and dismiss prime minister at his or her own will. The monarch appoints and dismisses them after the vote of the Parliament.

Dr. Mossadegh was the FOREMOST expert of the 1906 constitution in Iran. His interpretation is the dominant interpretation of the powers of the monarch.

Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi violated the constitution, and established their personal tyrannical savage rule.

Mohammad Amini on the dominant interpretation of the 1906 Constitution.

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

In conclusion, Mossadegh had the right to hold a referendum on the dismissal of the Majles. It was the democratic way to counter the CIA organized coup against Iran’s pro-democracy movement and pro-independence movement.

Because the Majles was suspended, therefore, the Shah did NOT have the right to dismiss or appoint a prime minister. The CIA-MI6-Shah coup was therefore against our 1906 constitution. The coup destroyed our independence, lukewarm democracy, freedom, and human rights. The coup establish the savage brutal fascistic rule of the Shah until 1978-1979.

MK

Planet Iran or planet Earth?

@HTG: "Which was one of the most advanced compared to any other country, during the 40's."

Citation, please.

(I found this ... //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Razmara)

@MK: Please cite "scholarly works by  top scholars (historians, political scientists, etc) from [any nationality]" that would provide the basis for a comparative analytical framework of the contemporary conditions.   

(For example ... //scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Japan+ad...)

Thank you, gentlemen.

بفرما.

بفرما. حالا بازم بگید که این جمهوری اسلامیتون ساخت آمریکا و انگلیس نیست

دست مریزاد مسعود جان، عجب کامنتی زدی!

رفراندم خودسرانه؟!

The most shocking fallacy of this article is not in its feeble attempt at rewriting history, but the laughable notion of "maverick referandum!" Is it to imply that a referandum could actually be forced on people, or is it because it didn't have the permisssion from HIM, the Shah!

Why is it that all dictators (e.g. Shah, Khomeini, Khamenei...) and their petty apologists are so afraid of referandums?! The reason Mossadegh is close to our people's heart is that he not only didn't fear their opinions, but respected them!

Naa Shah Mikhaim, Naa Akhond, Laanat Bar Har 2 ta Shoon

After being put on the throne by the British in 1941, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi did not have full control over Iran. Other parties were established by various forces. Among these were Hezb Iran and later Jebhe Melli Iran. The primary objectives of HI and JM was to establish esteghal, azadi, and democracy in Iran.

The Shah’s objective from 1941 was to establish his brutal one-person tyranny similar to the savage one-man tyranny of his father.

Therefore, in 1951 we have the following situation:

1. the Shah wanted to increase his personal dictatorial powers.

2. The Shah was serving the colonial interests of the UK

Mossadegh and JM wanted to use non-violence methods of struggle to gain Iran’s independence from the UK and force the Shah to abide by the 1906 constitution, so that JM could establish democracy, freedom, and human rights in Iran.

Hence the struggle between monarchists and democratic forces was over independence and democracy on the one side, and dictatorship and subservience on the other.

We lost. The forces of tyranny, savagery, and colonialism won.

Mossadegh-JM did not execute one single political prisoners. Did not assassinate anyone. Did not torture anyone.

The fascistic Shah did imprison Iranian democrats and nationalists. The fascistic Shah executed the best of us. The fascistic Shah tortured sooooooooo many political prisoners, including burning them alive. The fascistic Shah raped political prisoners. There was no freedom of expression, freedom of the press, political parties, elections under the fascistic rule of the Shah. The people were ordered to join his single party or go to prison, or leave the country.

The struggle for democracy, freedom, and human rights continues. Sooner or later, the Iranian people will send the ruling fundamentalist savages to the garbage can of history next to the fascist monarchists.