Mossadegh, Jebhe Melli Iran, Iran National Front: Basic Intro to History and Factions


Masoud Kazemzadeh
by Masoud Kazemzadeh

Mossadegh, Jebhe Melli Iran, Iran National Front: Basic Intro to History and Factions

The sole party or coalition that Mossadegh led between 1949 until his death in 1967 is JM.

From the get go, the JM was a coalition of many parties and individuals. Our social base is vast. JM brought together various ideologies: liberal democrats (largest group), social democrats (second largest group), pan-Iranist nationalists (Dariush Forouhar’s Hezb Mellat Iran), devout Muslims who believed in separation of religion and politics (Grand Ayatollah Zanjani, Ayatollah Taleghani, the younger Ayatollah Zanjani), liberal democratic Islamists, democratic socialists, as well as some right-of-center folks.

Some of the parties in the JM are: Hezb Iran (founded in 1941 or 1942), supporters of Hezb Socialist, supporters of the Third Force, Hezb Mardom Iran (combined democracy, socialism, and Islam). Hezb Mellat Iran (Forouhar’s party) split from JM in April 1979.

JM brought together various social classes: modern educated middle class, traditional lower middle class (e.g., bazaris), democratic and nationalist elements of the upper classes (capitalist, tribal), and modern working class (e.g., Jahan Pahlavan GholemReza Takhti).

JM brought together devout Muslims, less devout Muslims, agnostics, atheists, as well as all kinds of Sunnis, Zarthoshtis, Jewish, Armenian, Assyrians, non-practicing Bahais, .....

JM brought together Azerbaijanis, Persians, Kurds, Gilaks, Khuzestanis, Qashqais, Bakhtiaris, etc into one organization.

Therefore, JM was a vastly heterogenous coalition of classes, religious beliefs, ideologies, and ethnic groups.

People are free to come in and if they do not like it to leave. JM is the only main political party in Iran that has NOT killed its own members. The Pahlavis did MURDER their own top loyal officials and supporters. The fundamentalists have murdered their own leaders and members. The PMOI, Tudeh Party, Fadaian, all have murdered their own members.

The fascistic Pahlavis and Islamic fundamentalists also tortured, raped, and killed other Iranians who dissented. The sole group that has been in power in Iran and did NOT torture, rape, and kill those who criticized it, has been the JM. The sole group in power in Iran that did not destroy freedom of the expression and the press has been JM. The fascistic monarchists and fundamentalists destroyed freedoms of the press and expression.

In JM we welcome diversity of views among our members and leaders. We have always had various parties and factions. We fully believe and practice freedom of expression, including differing and dissenting from the consensus.

JM’s objectives were: independence, democracy, freedom, human rights. In our view, the Shah was nokar of colonial powers who wanted to subjugate the Iranian people in order to have our oil. Our view is vindicated by massive historical and scholarly documents. The Shah was a brutal savage tyrant. There was no democracy, freedom of the press, of political parties, or human rights under the Pahlavi tyranny. The rule of Islamic fundamentalist has been more tyrannical, more violent, and more repressive than under the Pahlavis. We believe that the Iranian people deserve a system faaaaaaaaaaar better than those under the tyrannies of monarchy and the IRI. We believe that the Iranian people deserve democracy, civil liberties, and human rights. We that the best form to achieve these is a secular democratic republic. The best form with the highest likelihood of success for achieving these goals is a constitutional design based on a parliamentary democracy with a ceremonial president, with a Bill of Rights.


The Jebhe Melli Iran inside Iran right now has two factions.

1. The leadership faction. The number one leader of JM is Adib Boroumand. He is the Chair of the Central Committee and the Chair of the Leadership Council. He is a liberal democrat associated with Hezb Iran. The number 2 is Dr. Hossein Mousavian. He is the Chair of the Executive Committee. He is a social democrat. He come from the Socialist Party (abolished in 1961 when it was under the leadership of Dr. Masoud Hejazi and Dr. Khonji). The leadership enjoys the support of the majority of the Central Committee, and the Executive Committee. Dr. Mehdi Moayedzadeh is a prominent member of the leadership group.

2. A small dissident faction is led by Mr. Koroush Zaim (right wing) and Mr. Jamal Dorodi (used to be a social democrat). This faction tried very very hard to replace the current leadership but failed. In the past 2 years, this faction has published really nasty public attacks on the majority. They remain members of JM and Central Committee.


JM/INF groups outside Iran.

1. Sazemanhay Jebhe Melli Iran Kharej az Kashvar. Iran National Front-Organizations Abroad (INF-OA). The INF abroad in the U.S. was established by the late Dr. Ali Shayegan and Dr. Mohsen Ghaemmagham in the early 1960s. It has been in existence since then. Dr. Ghaemmagham is currently a member of the Central Committee of the INF-OA and the Chair of the Entesharat of the INF-O (U.S. branch). INF-OA is very close to the majority faction inside Iran. JM in Iran and the INF outside do NOT have any formal organizational relationship. But we communicate with and help each other. During the struggle against the Leadership faction by the Zaim dissident fact, INF-OA strongly and fully backed the Leadership and attacked Zaim faction.

I am a member of INF-OA and its affiliate in the U.S. (INF-O, U.S. branch). I have served as elected Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Human Rights, member of the Central Committee, and Executive Committee of the INF-O (U.S. Branch). I am currently a member of the Foreign Policy Committee of INF-OA. Most of our members tend to be liberal democrat or social democrat.

The official website of INF-OA is:


The website of the INF-O (U.S. branch) is:



The group Melliun is close to us:


The INF-OA has close relations with NAMIR, and Iran Liberal Party.


Hamid Sadr of NAMIR is also a member of INF-OA and was elected to our Central Committee recently.

Dr. Homayun Menmaneche, a close adviser to Dr. Bakhtia, is the elected member of INF-OA Central Committee and Executive Committee. The EC has three members and leads the INF-AO.

Jebhe Melli Iran-Germany is also close to us:


The Ehteram Azadi (Dr. Parviz Davarpanahe’s site) is very close to INF-OA:


Sazeman Socialist-Hay Iran is close to INF-OA:


2. Another faction is called Jebhe Melli Iran-Europe (JMI-E). They are close to the Koroush Zaim faction. They made terribly harsh attacks on the current leadership in Iran. Their site is:


The JMI-E is allied with JMI-America (JMI-A). Their site is:


Unlike their affiliate in Europe, the JMI-A did not publish on its site some of the most nasty attacks on the JM leadership inside Iran. JMI-A is also very close to Koroush Zaim, but they also try to have good relations with the leadership. There is a group called JMI-Washington, DC, which joined this group several years ago.

I personally know many wonderful and decent members of JMI-A and JMI-E.

3. There is a very small group (I think there are about 4 or 5 people in it). Their site is:


They are led my Dr. Amir Houshmand Momtaz. Dr. Momtaz was a member of INF-O (U.S.branch), they he left us and joined the JMI-A. He then left them and created his own faction.

4. There are also several individuals who used to be members of JM, and do not belong to any group. Once every two or three years, they jointly publish a letter expressing their opinions.


1. JM

JM is the only organization that Mossadegh was its official leader. Mossadegh founded JM in 1949. And until his last breath in 1967, JM was the sole organization that Mossadegh was affiliated with.

2. Nehzat Azadi

In 1961, Nehzat Azadi (NA) was created from the members of JM who wanted to create a liberal democratic Islamist party in Iran (analogous to the Christian Democratic Party in Germany, or various Christian Democratic Parties in Latin America). Dr. Mossadegh encouraged that. However, by 1962-63, Nehzat Azadi and JM moved apart. Therefore from around 1962, when the so-called Jebhe Melli Sevvom was organized, Nehzat Azadi was not part of JM.

Other groups and individuals (e.g., NA and PMOI) were in existence while Mossadegh was alive. They pursued policies different than those of JM-Mossadegh. They have the right to say that they are inspired by Mossadegh’s legacy as our democratic socialists or others may wish to say that. However, the sole party-organization that is fully a Mossadeghi entity is the JM. Others are inspired by Mossadegh, and mix their own ideology with those aspects of Mossadegh’s legacy they like and avoid those aspects of Mossadegh’s policies or ideology with which they disagree. We respect their right to take what they like and not take what they do not like.

Dr. Ali Amini’s government came to power under pressure from the Kennedy administration. Amini asked JM to join his cabinet. JM refused and instead demanded free elections. But NA engaged in negotiations with Amini and was willing to join his cabinet.

The Kennedy administration was pressuring the Shah to make certain reform (in Latin America they were called Alliance for Progress), which in Iran included land reform, female franchise, reduction of repression, etc. The Shah opposed making these reforms because the Shia clerics were opposed to them and the Shia clerics and big land owners constituted the main pillars of the Shah’s regime (other than the military and SAVAK). To be more precise, from around 1957, the U.S. government wanted the Shah to make reforms. The Shah made a deal with JFK to get rid of Amini and he himself would make the reforms. By1963, with the earlier deaths of Grand Ayatollah Brujerdi and Kashani, the Shah decided to break with his conservative Shia cleric allies (who had helped him during and after the 1953 coup).

The JM position was clear: "Eslahat ari; dictatori, naa" [Reforms Yes; Dictatorship No]. JM opposed both the Shah dictatorship and the conservative anti-reform reactionaries.

In June 1963, NA sided with Khomeini and opposed JM’s position. Bizarre as it is, the Tudeh Party also sided with Khomeini during the June 1963. The Shah’s Shia cleric allies such as Akhund Falsafi left the Shah and sided with Khomeini.

NA and the group which emerged after the revolution which calls its self Melli Mazhabi (MM) do regard themselves as supporters of Dr. Mossadegh. There is, of course, a contradiction here. Mossadegh believed that the religion should be separate from the state. He recognized that as long as a party accepts the basic system to be secular, religious parties could participate. This is the case in many democratic systems.

In Israel there are religious parties. Some of these religious parties want to make Halacha (the Jewish version of Islamic Shariah) laws of Israel. Some even oppose the secular nature of Israel. The following mentions some of these:


NA and MM have attempted to articulate a liberal version of Islam. When Khomeini issued his fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the sole person inside Iran who had the courage to stand up to Khomeini was Mehdi Bazargan. Bazargan openly, publicly, and explicitly opposed Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie as anti-freedom.

3. Dr. Ali Shariati

Dr. Shariati was a strong supporter of Dr. Mossadegh. Shariati wanted to create a progressive interpretation of Islam. This was also attempted by some in Latin America. The movement was called "Liberation Theology." In Germany, they had a party called "Social Christian Party." Also in the U.S., there were progressive movements such as that by Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr., who attempted to make a progressive and egalitarian interpretation of Christianity. Dr. Shariati was a member of INF-O (European faction) which is the same Sazemanha that my group is in the 1960s when he was in Europe. When he went back to Iran, he left Iran and joined NA. When he was part of JM, he was a member of Hezb Mardom Iran. Hezb Mardom Iran combined, democracy, socialism, and Islam as its ideology and was a Mossadeghi party and a member of JM.

4. Democratic Socialists

The people and groups which have attempted to articulate liberal, or socialist interpretations of Islam, have also claimed to be supporters of Mossadegh. The reason is that Mossadegh is the main democrat in our politics. Therefore, those who want to be democratic, are inspired by Mossadegh’s legacy. This is also true of those who were Marxists and wanted to articulate a democratic interpretation of socialism. The prime example is Khalil Maleki. Maleki was a top member of the Tudeh Party. Once he recognized the dependent nature of the Tudeh Party on the USSR, Maleki and his supporters in the Tudeh Party left the TP, and joined the JM under Mossadegh’s leadership. Maleki’s Third Force [Niriyeh Sevvum] was Marxist, democratic socialist, pro-democracy, and was 100% for the independence of Iran. And it was a Mossadeghi group.

Mossadegh is the primary democratic icon, legacy, and leader in history and politics. Therefore, he is hated and opposed by tyrannical groups (i.e., monarchists, and fundamentalists). And that is why those who want to embrace democracy consider themselves as following him.


The PMOI founders were members of the NA. They wanted to combine socialism and modernist Islam. The PMOI regarded Mossadegh as the representative for liberal national bourgeoisie that was appropriate in 1951-53. The PMOI considered the era of capitalism to be over by 1965. The PMOI looked at Mossadegh the way Marx looked at Abraham Lincoln, or Mao looked at Sun Yat Sen (sp?). The original PMOI (1965-1984 or so) wanted to create communist Islamist organization and ideology. The new PMOI (1984 to present) is non-ideological and would make alliance with ANYONE (Saddam, the U.S., Israel, etc) in order to overthrow the fundamentalist regime.

6. Fadaian-Aksariyat

Fadaian-Aksariyat was never pro-Mossadegh. They were very opportunistic and remain so. Aksariyat sided with Tudeh and Khomeini until their members were arrested in 1983.

7. Fadaian-Aghaliyat, and Fadaian before the revolution

Many in Fadaian did have some positive views on Dr. Mossadegh. But their ideology and methods of struggle were different.

8. Tudeh Party

Tudeh Party during Mossadegh’s time viciously attacked Mossadegh and made all sorts of lies about Mossadegh-JM. During the first year of Mossadegh’s government, Tudeh party called for 17 rallies and marches. Of these 16 were to oppose Mossadegh. The leadership of TP was nokar of USSR. So they were opposed to Mossadegh’s nationalist policies. For example, TP supported the Azerbaijan secession from Iran. Mossadegh had opposed that. Mossadegh-JM wanted to nationalize our oil from the British, as well as opposed granting any oil concession to the USSR. Stalin wanted to have our oil in northen Iran. JM-Mossadegh nationalized the Shilat Shomal [Northern Fisheries] from the USSR ownership. That made the USSR and Tudeh Party hate the JM-Mossadegh. Stalin regarded the U.S. as his number 1 enemy. Stalin regarded Mossadegh as friend of the U.S. For Stalin (and thus Tudeh), UK was a declining power, and the U.S. was the main enemy. Thus the USSR and Tudeh opposed Mossadegh-JM because they regarded the U.S. as their primary enemy.. Moreover, Stalin-Tudeh believed that the Shah lacked modern, democratic, nationalist sources of legitimacy; therefore, in their analysis it would be easier to overthrow the reactionary and despotic Shah in a communist revolution. Stalin-Tudeh believed that Mossadegh-JM by creating a modern, democratic, liberal, nationalist system in Iran would undermine the possibility of a communist revolution. Therefore, USSR and Tudeh Party strongly opposed Mossadegh-JM as their primary enemy.

Only in early 1953, USSR and Tudeh Party realized how wrong they were. But because of the terribly vicious attacks by Tudeh against us, it was not easy to trust them. After the coup, TP realized the stupid mistake they made. It was a common mistake by Stalin and communists. In the 1920s-1932, Stalin and German communists made the same mistake: they viciously attacked the German Social Democrats as their main enemy instead of Hitler and Nazi party.

The Tudeh Party AGAIN in 1979 considered the liberals (JM, NA, MM) as its primary enemy. For the Tudeh Party, the liberal democrats were close to the U.S. (jadeh saf kon America), opposed the mass executions of the monarchists (weak on domestic fascists and domestic pillars of imperialism), and could create a legitimate modern democratic system. Tudeh supported Khomeini because he was 100% against the U.S., and wanted to kill monarchists (being revolutionary).

Tudeh Party was NEVER a Mossadeghi party. In fact, the Tudeh Party’s ideology (Stalinism when Stalin was in power, Khrushchevist when Khrushchev was in power, Brezhnevist when Brezhnev was in power) was 100% opposed to JM-Mossadegh’s ideology of democracy, civil liberties, mixed economy, and non-aligned foreign policy.

Tudeh party’s ideology was Stalinist, one-party communist tyranny, nokar of USSR.


more from Masoud Kazemzadeh

More lies by our resident Mossadeghollahi

by anglophile on

گوئی کاظم زاده که حتی یکبار هم مورد نظر پرسی‌ از یکی‌ از رسانه‌های معتبر واقع نشده  خودرا مرجع میداند و بدون ذکر هیچ ماخذ و منبعی انتظار دارد حرفهاش باور شود!! در کتاب جلال متینی و سایر محققین پرده از مصاحبت و تمایلات استبداد جویانه مصدق برداشته شده است. به دو سایت مراجعه کنید و از دو دیدگاه مختلف مصدق را بشناسید:


برخلاف آنچه شهرت داده اند مصدق از یک خانواده فقیر یا حتی متوسط نبوده بلکه او یکی از فرزندان قاجار بوده است که قسمت اعظم بدبختی ها و عقب ماندگی های ملت ما مربوط به همین خاندان است . دل مصدق نمی تواند از این خانواده جدا باشد . آزادی خواهی او از قبیل آزادی خواهی ناصرالدین شاه و محمد علی شاه است . ولی با پوشش آراسته ای که با نیرنگ استعمار استتار شده بود . به هنگامی که مشروطه خواهان طرفدار انگلستان به سفارت انگلیس پناهنده شدند مصدق السلطنه نیز در خانه منشی سفارت انگلیس که دوست صمیمی او بوده است مخفی میشود و چندی بعد به عضویت دار الشورای استبداد در می آید .

از نظر مالی مصدق السلطنه یکی از مالکین بزرگ و اشرافی بوده است و ده بزرگ او دراحمد آباد قسمتی از ثروت عظیم او بوده است . چگونه ممکن است چنین شخصی در دوران انقلاب اسلامی به عنوان الگو معرفی شود . انقلابی که عدل علی را پیشوای خود می داند ."




" رضا خان در راستای این اندیشه، به تشکیل "حکومت جمهوری اقدام کردو تمبر جمهوری نیز چاپ شد، ملایان پول پرست وشاهزاده های قاجار ومالکین که منافع خود را در خطر دیدند، او را از این کار شایسته باز داشتند، محمد مصدق السلطنه، که در همان زمان نماینده مجلس بود، به سان شاهزادگان دیگر، برای منافع خود، نه تنها از این کار رضاخان میرپنج در برپایی جمهوری پشتیبانی نکرد، به همراه چهار تن دیگر به پشتیبانی از ترکان قاجار، که ایران را به نابودی کشیده بودند، برخاست و چند سال پس از آن دیدیم، که با سیاست منفی و به زیر پتورفتن ، کشور را به پرتگاهی مخوفی برد، که کشور های انگلیس وروسیه منتظر آن بودند. دولت انگلیس در این ویرانگری به سان ماهاتاما گاندی با دادن شخصیت کاذب به او زمینه ساز نابسامانی ها شد. شور بختانه هنوز بسیاری از ایرانیان، که شناختی از زد وبند های پشت پرده او با انگلیس ندارند، او را ستایش می کنند.  فرنود آوری یکی از همین طرفداران او این اشتباه تاریخی و سیاسی را نشان می دهد، او در مقاله یی که در روی تارنمای خود نوشته است، می گوید، من آن زمان کودک بودم، ولی چون پدرم طرفدارمصدق بود، من هم از او جانبداری می کنم. ما با داشتن چنین مدعیان اندیشمندی که به نادرست خود را هواخواه دموکراسی می دانند، شایسته این هستیم که مشتی ملای خونخوار، مردم آزاده ی ایران را به زنجیر کشیده وهستی کشور ومردم را تاراج  کنند.


برای روشنگری در این زمینه، ایران دوستان و کسانی که مهر به این سرزمین کهن دارند، می توانند نوشته ی مستند و بی طرفانه ی دکتر جلال متینی رئیس پیشین دانشگاه توس ( به نادرست مشهد) را به خوانند.




Thank you

by religionoutofgovernment on

Great work as always.

Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear ROOG,

There is a HUGE difference between "separation of religion and the state" vs. "separation of religion and politics."

A democracy needs to have a separation of religion and the state. This means that state institutions and religious institutions are separate. The clerics and religious institutions do not have any institutional power over the state. This means that a religious clerics or a religious party can run for office and if won, can be the government for the duration which the constitution allows. For example, the U.S. is a secular system with separation of state and religion. But clerics such as Rev. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jessie Jackson can run for presidency or any other office.

Caveat: Many political systems have had official religions. This may pose a problem. In the UK, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England. (With some weird laws such as the monarch could not be a Catholic nor marry a Catholic.) As long as these problems are minor, and in actual practice, the religious institution is under the control of the state, problems could be managed.

In our 1906 Constitution and the 1907 Revisions [Motamam Qanon Asasi], the Constitution stated that the 12 Imami Shia is the official state religion. That the monarch and the PM have to be 12 Imami Shia Muslims. The 1907, the 2nd Amendment also said that there should be a Council of Mojtaheds who would review all the laws of the Majles to make sure they do not violate the Shariah.

In Germany, Italy, and many Latin American countries, they have had Christian Democratic Parties. So, as long as these religious parties accept the separation of religion and the state, they can have as their ideology a religious ideology.

The same is the case in Israel.

So, if a party accepts separation of state institutions and Islam, but their own ideology is Islamist, can they participate in a democratic system in Iran?

The answer in France was no. They had that system in Turkey, but they had to change it.

No doubt that there is a serious issue. The way I see it is that NA and MM do not pose a threat to democracy and civil liberties. But Khomeini and his supporters do pose a mortal threat to democracy and civil liberties.

In conclusion, based on my observations, we have to have a secular constitutional system if we want to have democracy in Iran. We can live with those Islamist parties that combine Islam with democracy. Islamist parties that are fundamentalist or combine a dictatorial ideology with Islam, are threats to democracy. If they defeat the secular forces and the liberal democratic Islamists, then there will be dictatorship.

To defeat the dictatorial forces, we need to have a working coalition among all democratic forces: secular democrats and liberal Islamists.

This is a complex issue. The best solution is to have religion a private matter. But many religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), have political and social agenda. The question is how the create a system in which we could have a democracy and a live-and-let-live situation whereby one group does not impose its views on the other side with violence.

Each polity has wrestled with this issue differently. As humanity progresses, educational levels increase, science progresses, the level of superstition and ignorance declines. The power of religious institutions and clerics have declined in general, but there have been many reversals. During the Cold War, the West and many right-wing groups in the Global South pumped a lot of money and resources into religious institutions in order to use them against the Communists. In the Middle East and North Africa, some of the right-wing governments and groups also tried to use religion against the secular democratic forces. So the question is what to do with these terribly anti-democratic folks.



Grand Ayatollah Zanjani was for separation of religion and the state as well as separation of religion and politics. During the Congress of Jebhe Melli Dovvum in Tehran Pars (I think it was 1961 or 1962) the delegates voted for the leadership. Among those who won were Mrs. Parvaneh Eskandari-Forouhar and Dr. Darabi. Both went up and took their seats behind the table along other elected leadership. Four or five religious bazaari delegates strongly objected that these elected leaders were there with no hijab (rosari). They demanded that the two females to wear rosari. The other elected leaders talked with each other and explicitly and unanimously said that the females have the right to wear whatever they want. The 4 or 5 delegates resigned and left the congress. Grand Ayatollah Zanjani sat there and with his presence affirmed the right of the female leaders to wear what they wanted and the right of the leadership to support them. This is the actual separation of religious law and secular law affirmed and confirmed by Grand Ayatollah Zanjani. The Grand Ayatollah was later elected to JM leadership. The JM explicitly supported female franchise and land reform.

NA and MM do not believe in separation of Islam and politics. Their ideology is Islam. The question is whether or not they believe in separation of Islam and the state.







Role of religion

by religionoutofgovernment on


Firstly, I thank you for taking the time and writing this response.  let me say that as usual, I agree with you on 95% of your points. I do however disagree on the role of Nehzate Azadi. I belive they had a key role in deliberately mixing religion and politics and becoming the political arm of Khomeini from 1962 to 1979.

There is a lot of evidence that Mosaddegh realized this and did in fact stay away from some religious members, INCLUDING Bazargan, refusing to give him a Vazir post (see the book below). After the Mordad 28 when all the secular, higher ranking members of JM were in jail, the more religioius faction including Taleghani found more room to form the more militant national resistant movement, which then separated from the more traditional JM members and formed Nehzate Azadi. In fact, in Khordad 1341 when JM refused to back Khomeini in his opposition to land reform and voting rights for women, Nehzate Azadi supported Khomini. Thereafter, Nehzate Azadi and Khomeini worked very closely as a team. In fact, it was Nehzate Azadi who falsely blamed the Shah for the death of Mostafa Khomeini and Shariati when Khomeni himself called his son's death a passing away and never referred to it as a killing! 

Masoud, this is not about opposition to religion, as I also believe everyone should have the right and freedom to practice what they believe. This is about understanding exactly who brought us the "Islamic Politics" which has resulted in this barberic, genocidal regime. I believe Nehzate Azadi and the likes of Shariati, Taleqani and Bazargan had a lot to do with it. 

BTW, please read Taleqani's speech about his role in trying to mediate between Mosaddegh and Fadaian Eslam. I will post if I find it.


Here is the book:


Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear ROOG,

1. The first video is an interview with Mohammad Amini, and NOT "Ali" Amini. I support "JB" is a typo and you meant JM.

2. I just watched the video by Bahram Moshiri.

2.1. As a rule, I think Moshiri’s role as an intellectual is positive. He is a brave man. And he is well educated.

2.2. In this video, he only criticizes Shariati on Imam Hussein and martyrdom.

2.3. In my opinion, it is necessary for democracy to have separation of the state and religion.

2.4. In democracies, one could have religious parties participate as long as they accept the separation of the state and the religious institution.

2.5. In actual practice, of course the relationship between religion and politics is a very very tough question. This problem needs to be resolved in various polities.

2.6. In my opinion, the position of the traditional orthodox clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari and Grand Ayatollah Khui are far more conducive for democracy than those who want to transform Islam into a political ideology.

2.7. The problem is Iran was that kings used Shia Islam as their state ideologies. Mohammad Reza Shah used Islam to combat secular opposition: first against the Tudeh Party and then against JM. The counter-measure of the TP was to constantly praise Islam and Shia Imams.

As you may know, one of the charges against Mossadegh during his trial by the Shah in 1953-54 was that he is an apostate [mortad]. The Shah’s military court officially used as one of the charges as mortad. In the court, prosecutor used a sentence from Dr. Mossadegh’s doctoral theses to argue that Mossadegh did not believe in Islam.

The JM used a variety of counter-measures. One was to bring into its membership top Shia clerics who believed in democracy, freedom, and separation of religion and the state. They included Grand Ayatollah Zanjani, and Ayatollah Taleghani. Another counter-measure was to have religious parties that were also democratic as members of the JM.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi had badly POLITICIZED Islam and used that to attack the modern secular opposition. The Shah was claiming that the 12th Imam communicates with him and provides him with secrets of things to come and was actively intervening to protect him. During Aide Qorban before the revolution (either 1977 or 1978), members of the JM were meeting at a private garden. The Shah’s forces (SAVAK) wearing regular cloths (lebas shakhsi) pretending to be devout Shia workers attacked the meeting, and beat up the JM members, and broke Dr. Bakhtiar’s hand. In the papers the next day, the Shah’s regime claimed that they JM members were drinking alcohol during Aide Qorban and that made the Muslim workers in the area angry!!!!!!!!

What Bazargan and Shariati were doing was to rescue and reclaim Shia Islam from the Shah’s appropriation and from the Shah’s reactionary clerical allies. The tradition of reactionary monarchist Shia clerics goes back to Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri. Khomeini was a strong supporter of Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri. Khomeini’s first major book, "Kashef Asrar 1000 Saleh" is a strong support for MONARCHY. In the 1940s, Khomeini like Nouri was 100% a monarchist. Khomeini broke with the Shah around 1963 due to female franchise, land reform, and changing the oath of office from taking to oath to the Qoran to "a holy book."


Bazargan tried to modernize Islam and articulate a liberal democratic interpretation of Islam. Shariati tried to modernize Islam and articulate a socialistic interpretation of Islam. Shariati also wanted to take the monopoly of interpretation and authority FROM the Shia CLERICS. Shariati’s project was to present a sort of progressive Reformation of Islam. He was a left-wing Luther of Shia Islam. Many fundamentalists clerics hate and oppose Shariati. They opposed him and his ideas before he died in 1977. Had he lived, Khomeini and the fundamentalist would have killed him after the revolution.

I do not know what Shariati would have done after the revolution. His ideas were totally opposite to those of Khomeini’s and velayat faghih. There is a caveat; Shariati thought Khomeini was progressive because he fought against the Shah. I believe that Shariati would have quickly become aware of the utter reactionary nature of Khomeini.

In conclusion, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was using the weapon of Islam against the democratic forces. Shariati was trying to take that weapon out of the hands of the Shah and use it against the Shah. What happened was that Khomeini was the main beneficiary. As marja taghlid, he had more authority than either the Shah or the now-dead Shariati to speak for Islam. So, Khomeini used the weapon of Islam against all others (monarchists, and JM, and Marxists). There was also a social base that supported Khomeini against Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari, Bazargan, and the PMOI, each with its own brand of interpretation of Islam.

To focus on Shariati while ignoring the whole context misses the point. Shariati dies in 1977. We do NOT know what exactly what he would have done. Had Shariati and Ayatollah Taleghani had survived, the outcome of the revolution might have been very different. They could have effectively countered Khomeini and his reactionary fascistic fundamentalist version of Islam.

Today, our intellectuals, our masses, and our modern middle class have grown much more sophisticated than in the 1970s. This our people have leaned by living under the nightmarish hell of mixing Islam and politics. Just look around the Middle East and North Africa: in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere the Islamists have the upper hand. Theses poor folks do not know what we know.

Finally, the role of a major political party is different than the role of individual intellectuals or a small one-issue party. The role of a major political party is to forge a coalition of forces that can take power. A democratic party can not and should not insult the religious sensitivities of the population. A democratic party can and should advocate separation of religion and the state. A tough question is what to do with a party or group that wants to articulate a democratic interpretation of Islam as their ideology and participate in a secular and democratic system. JM’s position is that we respect their right as long as they accept separation of religion and the state.





Question for Masoud

by religionoutofgovernment on


Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the religious people you mention below, or for that matter, any other JM related religioous people inlcuding those who formed Nehzate Azadi believed in separation of religion and politics? Thanks

Masoud Said: 

"JM brought together various ideologies: ................, devout Muslims who believed in separation of religion and politics (Grand Ayatollah Zanjani, Ayatollah Taleghani, the younger Ayatollah Zanjani), liberal democratic Islamists, democratic socialists, as well as some right-of-center folks."

Masoud Kazemzadeh

Mossadegh vs. Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

From the get go, Mossadegh was for the Constitutional movement. Mossadegh strongly struggled against Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar’s moves against the constitutionalists. With the help of the Tsarist Russia and the acquiescence of the British, Mohammad Ali Shah wanted to become an absolutist monarch. Mohammad Ali Shah asked Mossadegh to intercede with some of the constitutionalists. Mossadegh refused. Instead, he told the Shah to abide with the constitution.


The Naked truth about Shariati

by religionoutofgovernment on

 Masoud, I am surprised by your apparent "support" for Shariati!! 



The Origins of Jebhe Melli

by religionoutofgovernment on

Here is Ali Amini's historical account of JB formation. 

Masoud Kazemzadeh

Dear friend Roozbeh

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Roozbeh,

Thank you for your kind words.

Best regards,




Thank you dear Masoud.

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

For a very informative and well researched article. 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."


Mossadegh constitutionalist?

by anglophile on

Was t it before or after his being an advisor to Mohammad Alishah (estebdaad saghir).



Masoud Kazemzadeh

Dear Ali P

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

"[Mossadegh] joined the Insaniyat society, of which Ali Akbar Dehkhuda ... was also an active member. This society was a radical revolutionary organization, with thirty voluntary musketeers to its credit. But the young Constitutionalist was soon to be disillusioned in his association with them."


Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power (London: I.B. Taurus, 1990), pp. 4-5.

Ali P.


by Ali P. on

"Mossadegh in fact was briefly a member of an armed constitutionalist group" ???


Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

AH: I was in Iran and believe me, Tudeh, Mujahedin, Fadaian, Hezbollah all had huge following in the young people but JM did not.

MK: You are correct.  And that  explains why we ended up with dictatorship. 

AH: So even more than thirty years ago, JM belonged to past of Iran and now even more so.

MK: I hope you are wrong.  If Iran is going to have democracy, we have to have our democratic forces be supported by the majority.  If the majority of the people support the pro-democracy forces (such as the JM) then we will have a democratic future.  If they support anti-democratic forces (like during 1980s), then we will have dictatorship.


I think that what we do matters.  Lets hope so.


Anahid Hojjati

Thanks Massoud for your explanation

by Anahid Hojjati on

In general, I think it is time to write more about future than past. Mossadegh was most active in politics more than 60 years ago. World has changed from back then and Iran has changed too. The main question now is which groups and people support fall of IRI and establishment of a secular and democratic government in Iran.

Additionally, groups like JM and Tudeh are not important in present politics of Iran. We have to admit this. Even thirty some years ago, during late 1970s, there were not many young people who supported JM. I was in Iran and believe me, Tudeh, Mujahedin, Fadaian, Hezbollah all had huge following in the young people but JM did not. So even more than thirty years ago, JM belonged to past of Iran and now even more so.


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Dear Anahid

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

AH: JM was never pro Sattar khan. They had a big role in bringing khomeini to power and did not complain about IRI until they were excluded from power.

MK: Dear Anahid,  What you wrote is factually FALSE.  JM has been and is pro-Sattar Khan. Mossadegh in fact was briefly a member of an armed constitutionalist group. JM is strongly pro-Sattar Khan.

JM was part of the revolution against the Shah. In the struggles after the overthrow of the Shah, Khomeini and IRP defeated the JM.

Actually the JM strongly complained and fought against the summary executions of the monarchists and the activities of the revolutionary courts and the revolutionary committees. JM members in the cabinet resigned from the cabinet on 26 Farvardin 1358 (April15, 1979). In other words, JM resigned about 2 months and 4 days after the revolution. JM strongly opposed Khomeini’s order for the dismissal of female judges (the sole party to do so) in May 1979. JM condemned the closure of Ayandegan in August 1979. JM opposed and condemned the VF constitution as anti-democratic and called up for protest marches. JM opposed the Qanon Qesas in Summer 1981. ALL these times, Tudeh (and on the latter ones Aksariyat) supported Khomeini and the reactionary forces and opposed and condemned the pro-democracy forces.

I hope this is helpful.



Masoud Kazemzadeh

Dear Anahid

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Anahid,

Fred in his blog had alleged that the Fadaian-Aksariyat (along with a number of other groups) was pro-Mossadegh.


I wrote: "Fadaian-Aksariyat was never pro-Mossadegh."

You wrote: "There were no Fadaian when Mossadegh was active in politics so how could they support him or not."

You obviously misunderstood the meaning of the sentence. In the very next sentences on the Fadaian-Aghaliyat and Fadaian before the revolution, I wrote:

"7. Fadaian-Aghaliyat, and Fadaian before the revolution

Many in Fadaian did have some positive views on Dr. Mossadegh. But their ideology and methods of struggle were different."

One may be pro-Mossadegh or anti-Mossadegh or indifferent towards Mossadegh TODAY, many years after the death of Mossadegh. It has to do with ideology. A person can establish a party tomorrow and adopt Lenin’s views. That party would be pro-Lenin or Leninist, although Lenin has been dead many many years.

Aksariyat was Marxist-Leninist and it was founded many many decades after Marx and Lenin had died. I classify Aksariyat as Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist.

Before the revolution, there were some members of the Fadaian who were pro-Mossadegh. One prominent example would be Mostapha Shoaian. Perhaps, also Masoud Ahmadzadeh would be in the pro-Mossadegh group (his father Taher Ahmadzadeh is a prominent pro-Mossadegh and MM). Perhaps also Marzieh Oskoi and Amir Parviz Pouyan would be in this camp (but I am not sure).

Bijan Jazani was an actual member of JM circa 1961-1964. But I am not sure I would classify him as pro-Mossadegh. Jazani had brought with him many of his close Marxist-Leninist friends into the JM Student group at the University of Tehran. It caused problems. Their ideology was different. Dr. Sanjabi asked him to leave. When he didn’t, JM had to expel him and his friends.

I hope this explanation help the misunderstanding. My sentence did NOT refer to Fadaian (pre-revolution, Aghaliyat, or Aksariyat) actually supporting what Mossadegh was doing. Rather about what party is a supporter of Mossadegh’s ideals, policies, or alliances. The primary question by Fred is why all the pro-Mossadegh parties and individuals fight against each other instead of being in one party or coalition. On the Aksariyat, my answer was that Aksariyat is not a pro-Mossadegh party to begin with.



Anahid Hojjati

when someone writes the following

by Anahid Hojjati on


 Mr Kazemzadeh, you wrote:"

6. Fadaian-Aksariyat

Fadaian-Aksariyat was never pro-Mossadegh. They were very opportunistic and remain so. Aksariyat sided with Tudeh and Khomeini until their members were arrested in 1983. "

There were no Fadaian when Mossadegh was active in politics so how could they support him or not. When you write the above, I can't take your blog seriously and makes me doubt your knowledge, your fairness, or both. 

In the style of your writing and the poor logic that you have, I write the following:

JM was never pro Sattar khan. They had a big role in bringing khomeini to power and did not complain about IRI until they were excluded from power. 


P _ J

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I don't resort to insulting, name calling, humiliating, or slandering other people, its my view of why masoud repels ic viewers, its hard to listen to what one is saying, when one looks at how they are behaving.  Be honest for a fraction of a second, how many times have you had to create a new username for having your account shut down?  

As for MK, his personal attacks are so disingenuous (partisan) it makes no sense asking him to leave, we need to work on airing his issues out for the benefit of the greater community.  You know that some people in iran point to the likes of you and Mk, for being a part of all the suffering that Iranians are experiencing today, the crimes, the tortures, the tyranny and the rapes none of these would be possible without, certain people like you and mk disingenuously presentng the late shah as a despot, a dictator, a torturer, a crook, and excessivelly repressive.  Isn't it Ironic how you guys get kudos for being in favor of democracy, because your undemocratic behavior makes it sound like a punishment not the ideal that it is.

I can show you and mk how to be and act civilzed if you want, I'm sure the Iranian people would appreciate the effort on yours and mk's part.  Wanna try? It will be so fun, polishing up a couple of fellow iranians and showing you how to seek happiness from within.



by P_J on

And than we have creatures like you…the EXTREME opposite of things CIVILIZED...a SHAHOLLAHI!

Should I say MORE!

Will not WASTE my time!

Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Mousa,

You are welcomed. Fred had asked a number of questions about the various groups that say they support Mossadegh and why they all attack each other.

Fred is exceptionally bright. He also writes very well both in Persian and in English. He is so good that several pro-IRI posters used to say that he is not one person, but a group in Israel or some PR firm in NY!!!!!!!!! He is one of the most influential and sophisticated posters on IC.

His positions are solidly anti-IRI. He also supports Israel. He also constantly attacks the Reformists members of the IRI. In my opinion, Fred’s posts on NIAC and the IRI are very good.

In my opinion, unfortunately, he also (unnecessarily) alienates some elements of the opposition by calling Dr. Shariati a "charlatan" without ever explaining why. I do not understand the rationale of Fred’s attacks on Shariati. First, he has never (to my knowledge) written a post explaining why Shariati is a charlatan. If one wants to call a person a charlatan, first he/she should prove it on basic facts. Second, why is it politically a positive move to attack some members of the opposition to the IRI who support Shariati. Fred’s rationale escapes me.





Dear Truthseeker,

Thank you for your comments.





Dear SK,

I disagree with you on thhe following: 

1. Many of the big American corporation want to have good business deals with the fundamentalist terrorist rulers of Iran. The big oil and other big corporations do not give a damn about human rights, freedom and democracy of the Iranian people. They have their lobbies that push for business deals with various dictatorial regimes including the IRI. One of the main groups among these immoral and unethical greedy big business is called Engage USA. This is their site:



2. Mossadegh was a tireless fighter against tyranny. ALL his life he fought against the tyrants who were oppressing the Iranian people. If he were alive, Mossadegh would have fought totally against the fascistic fundamentalist terrorist regime. Mossadegh was for democracy. This means that if Dr. Mossadegh was alive, he would 100% be for regime change in Iran from the ruling fascistic tyranny to a secular democracy. Period, no buts or ifs. To be a follower of Mossadegh is to oppose the reactionary tyrannical regime. Mossadegh’s ideals of democracy, civil liberties, and human rights are totally OPPOSED to the VF regime’s absolute dictatorship, utter repression, and utter lack of human rights. One could not be a support of Mossadegh and support in any shape or form the ruling reactionary, fundamentalist, tyrannical, terrorists who have been ruling Iran since at least 1981.

3. In my opinion, our primary enemies are the vf regime and NIAC. It is my opinion.





4. I support the de-listing of the PMOI. Here is my blog:



I hope this helps you understand my position.




Dear Vildemose,

You are welcomed.





Dear P_J,

Thank you for your kind comments.





P_ J Think of some of the benefits of Supporting Reza Pahlavi

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

You increase the participation of Iranians from good familes who know how to behave, Iranians who don't insult, name call, humiliate, or slander other people and you get to debate over views and beliefs, and you can share your value with others.  More Civilized, More Democratic and More Cultured Individuals would be good for all Iranians.   


EXTREMELY Informative, Thank you Masoud!

by P_J on

Don’t forget that there are STILL some 200 pages of  highly sensitive document missing from the AJAX dossier of the CIA… despite NY Times and other news organization’s attempts for securing them.

My personal feeling is that, this is right in the heart of every ones curiosity. These documents have not been released even though the “FREEDOM of INFOTMATION ACT” has been invoked on them by quite a few news agencies over and over again.  Their SENSATIVITY must be paramount and at the heart of what had REALLY happened, and could WELL clarify the CLOSE DUPLICITOUS relationship between the SHAH and the Mullahs, the forces that not only betrayed the GREAT Dr. Mossadegh but most importantly undermined our country.

This COULD be a tell all...a BOMBSHELL if released and a DARK day for the PAID Shahollahi AGENTS on the IC and elsewhere, despite all the EMBEZZLED Pahlavi LOOT!

It would also clarify the role(s) that some of the players/traitors like the NEFERIOUS DURG TRAFFIKING NYMPHO WHORE, Ashraf Pahlavi and her cohorts had played.


soozie joon: what's your bone with the wall street?

by mousa67 on

you live in USA dont you? i bet you have a 401k, bank account, perhaps a mortgage, all through finance institutions  headquartered at wall street or other US finance centers.

anyway, wall street never threathened that it'll aquire a nuke bomb to wipe another nation off the map of the world. islamic regime did just that.


Nice intro, dear MK. Keep

by vildemose on

Nice intro, dear MK. Keep up the good work.


All Oppression Creates a State of War--Simone De Beauvoir

Soosan Khanoom

IF Dr. Mossadegh was alive Today.

by Soosan Khanoom on

He would not, under any condition, be supporting a foreign invasion on the Iranian's  soil.   Among the opposition, only those who are actually against the war can be seen as a true supporter of Mossadegh.  Just like Dr. Shariati, Mossadegh too has been used for shameless political gains.  

Which Path to Persia?  

As planned by the Wall Street controllers of the world, the road goes through Libya, Syria, and then Iran. And the dumb and deaf bomb bomb crowd on this site with their MEK delisting supporters are counting days and can't wait to wave American flags to the conquerors of their oil wells. Mossadeq must be turning in his grave now.

Obama may read the teleprompter better than W but they both get the written speeches from the same source, Wall Street.

Toread the entire Brookings Institute report, "Which Path to Persia?"click here.




by Truthseeker9 on



There is what people say they are....

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

And then there is what people do & the fruits of their actions.

My views/beliefs,

When the Shah appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister Iran and was then betrayed by Mossadegh, this was due to the shahs inexperience as a young king and being easily decieved by a far more experienced and older Mossadegh.  I may be wrong. 

Mossadeghs approach of Iranian Oil nationalization was harmful to Iran as an approach and the basis of why he is see as acting as a British agent among Iranian Academia.  No other country that sought to Nationalize their industries has done so In such a reckless way so as to lawfully cause the Iranian people to have to pay massive fines which we were forced to, nor to lose/have essentially stolen from them for eternity agreements that the Iranian people would have benefitted from.

1) A percentage of All Iraqi oil revenues lost 2) A percentage of all Kuwaiti Oil Revenues lost 3) A percentage of all Bahraini Oil Revenues lost.  The Shah was in favor of Oil nationalization, it was his own goal and many academics look at mossadeghs approach and seriously question whether or not he was a british agent as he served her majesty the queen more than the people of Iran due to his approach and the heavey costs to the Iranian people, costs which when we see other countries that nationalize are done in a far more intelligent and lawful way.  Then there are his dictatorial actions of using his power to dissolve the parliament and then when asked by law to leave, refussing to do so. 

Neither Mossadegh, Nor Khomeini, who both spoke of democracy, did anything to plant any seeds for democracy for Iranians in my view.  Infact, serving the interests of the majority of Iranians and helping create the largest rate of growth in size of Iranian middle class in the world and the greatest growth in education, and having a bloody fight with mullahs to secularize iranian institutions from influence of mullah extremists are some of the reasons I give, that the late shah did more to serve the democratic will of the majority, than other leaders who claim to have served Iranians Interests against foreign meddling yet caused Iranians more harm.


thank you sir.

by mousa67 on

for once, i read a blog on this site, which taught me something about iran & it's recent history.

as for your reference to fred, i honestly do not know where he stands, since his blogs are mostly written in farsi. i only visit his blogs to have some fun with mamoors & mamooreh of the islamist regime who seem to get really pi$$ed off  with whatever he writes. :)