Iranian Liberal Democrat
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
The Shah Destroyed Our Constitution and Established Brutal Tyranny
28-Jul-2011
Excerpts from Habib Ladjevardi, "The Origins of U.S. Support for an Autocratic Iran
International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (May, 1983), pp. 225-239
those interested in reading the article, could find it in any university library or e-collections of university libraries. It could also be purchased from Jstor for $34. or for $30 directly from the publisher: journals.cambridge.org
===========================================
How Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Destroyed Our Constitution and Established Brutal Tyranny
According to Article 44 of the Fundamental Laws: "The person of the shah is exempted from responsibility. The ministers of state are responsible to the Majlis in all affairs." Article 66 made the relationship of the monarch and cabinet ministers even more explicit. It stated: "The ministers cannot use verbal or written orders of the shah to divest themselves of responsibility."
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's attacks on our Constitution:
1.
As far back as December 1942, slightly over a year after taking the throne, the shah-then only 23 years old-had urged Prime Minister Qavam to resign and place the government under the military-over which the monarch already had some influence. Qavam, however, supported by the British Minister Sir Reader Bullard,7 had repelled the shah's first attempt "to dominate the government through his own trusted supporters (acting) as ministers."8
2.
The monarch was not about to abandon his dream of continuing in his father's footsteps. In July 1943, the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.) told Washington that the shah had been energetically, though cautiously, strengthening ties with the officers of the army.9 In August, the same source reported that the shah had succeeded in taking control of the army. Although a high level commission had concluded that under Iran's constitution, the General Staff was subordinate to the minister of war (and thus under the control of the prime minister), the shah had refused to sign regulations implementing this decision. Instead the shah had ordered the minister of war to tell the press and the Majlis that he (the minister of war) was fully responsible for the army and the General Staff.'?
3.
By September 1943, the monarch was issuing orders directly to the General Staff, thus undermining the constitutional authority of the minister of war." He justified this seizure of executive powers by contending that constitutional government was premature for Iran. In December 1944, the shah had said to the visiting Averell Harriman: "The country could not be truly democratic, which he desired, until the people had acquired sufficient education to understand the principle of democratic government and be able to form intelligent individual opinion."'12 context of the period
Still, in 1941 after sixteen years of absolute rule by Reza Shah, a large number of middle- and working-class Iranians were unwilling to easily surrender their newly found political freedoms. Workers in most factories and civil servants in the central government, for instance, had formed their own trade unions. Wages had been increased as a result of unionization. Workers discharged without cause could appeal their case through their union, the press, and even the Grievance Committee of the Majlis.'5 Consequently the shah may not have succeeded in seizing greater power without the support of the two Western powers who (with the departure of Soviet troops) were able to wield considerable influence in Iranian affairs by the summer of 1946.
4.
According to the U.S. military attache in Tehran, a major advocate of United States involvement in Iranian affairs was the shah, whom he described as "extremely pro-American, even to the extent of urging . . . the United States to accept a valuable oil concession."27 In return the shah wished to be fully supported by the United States in his quest for absolute power. Reportedly the monarch had told Allen: "The Iranian people had not reached the stage where the king could only be a symbol. If he continued to exercise no substantive authority in Iranian affairs, the people would become unaware, after a time, of the value of a monarchy and unappreciative of the needs thereafter."28 Ambassador Allen initially turned down the shah's proposal to strengthen the court by reducing the constitutional powers of the prime minister. In the words of Allen: "I was not confident the shah was strong enough to succeed, did not think a king should be meddling in politics anyway, and was not certain where he would stop if he did succeed in whatever actions he might attempt. 29
In May 1946, Allen considered Prime Minister Qavam better equipped to achieve the main objective of the United States in Iran, which was "to prevent one more country from falling completely into the Moscow orbit."30 In the American ambassador's view, Qavam was "the most energetic and forceful man on the scene in Iran at the present time. If anyone can steer this ship of state through the dangerous waters it is now traversing, Qavam is the most likely instrument for the purpose."31
Consequently (as Allen reported it later to the State Department), on October 14, 1946, [U.S.] Ambassador Allen told the shah that he had "finally reached the conclusion that he [the shah] should force Qavam out and should make him leave the country or put him in jail if he caused trouble."37
Thus, the American ambassador in pursuit of his own country's interests and perhaps in his perception of what was best for Iran, delivered a devastating blow to Iran's infant constitutional government-a blow from which Iran has not yet recovered. Qavam himself unwittingly helped bring about his own doom. Having decided to delay elections for the XVth Majlis, Iran was without a parliament after March 1946. Consequently, Qavam was unable to enlist the support of the legislature, and through it the public, to prevent the shah's take-over of the executive branch. Under threat of arrest, Qavam succumbed to the shah and replaced six members of his cabinet with men more acceptable to the shah.44 Qavam's purge of his cabinet, which took place on October 16th, was correctly described by Ambassador Allen as "the turning point in Iranian history." This event alone, obviously, did not put an end to constitutional monarchy. Iran's return to autocracy was accomplished in stages. Within a period of two and one-half years-beginning with October 16, 1946-three different Western ambassadors gleefully referred to three specific instances of usurpation of power by the shah as "historical."
5.
The second "historical" advance toward one-man rule occurred in December 1947. By that time Russian troops had been pressured out of Iran by the United States and the United Nations, the province of Azarbaijan had been brought back under central government authority (as a result of the joint effort of the shah and Qavam), the Tudeh party was put in disarray, the XVth Majlis (with a few exceptions) was packed with members of the so-called thousand families, and the Soviet oil concession had been rejected by the Majlis.45 It was at this juncture that the two Western ambassadors finally agreed with the shah's long-standing desire to discharge Prime Minister Qavam, who now seemed expendable.46 Using as a pretext an allegedly veiled criticism of himself by Qavam, the shah let it be known that continuation of Qavam's cabinet was intolerable. As a result on December 4, 1947, all members of the cabinet (except two who were absent from Tehran) resigned, leaving Qavam totally isolated.
Following the resignation of the cabinet, the XVth Majlis, dominated by the supporters of status quo, gave the prime minister a vote of no confidence.47 He was not only relieved of his duties, but was also refused the diplomatic passport normally granted to former officials. Instead, Qavam, the most powerful man in Iran only a year and a-half earlier, was allowed to leave the country on an ordinary passport.48 This was the first demonstration of the shah's ability to out-maneuver and defeat his potential rivals-even Qavam, the highly experienced Iranian politician under whom the shah's own father had once served. This was not an ordinary change of cabinet. Clearly, the shah had acted after securing the blessings of the British as well as the American ambassador. British dispatches mention that their ambassador, John Le Rougetel, had discussed the removal of Qavam with the shah on November 12, 1947.49 The tone of the following passage from the American ambassador's report indicates that he too was sympathetic with the move:
Thus December 1947 marked the second "historical" event that propelled Iran toward autocracy. In the words of the British ambassador: The fall of Qavam seems likely to mark the end of a phase in the development of Persian politics. Earlier in the year there had already been signs of increased political activity by the court. The shah had felt, since December 1946 (when the central government took control of Azarbaijan),t hat too much credit had been given Qavam and insufficientt o himself...
A most surprising aspect of the diplomatic records consulted was that neither the State Department nor the Foreign Office was under any illusions as to the consequences of reestablishing one-man rule in Iran.52 Ambassador Le Rougetel correctly predicted in December 1947 that henceforth the shah would exert a direct and increasing influence, backed by the military authorities, in the government of the country.53 In the United States, the decision to support an autocratic monarchy was preceded by a vigorous debate within the State Department. Some officials argued that an increase of power by the shah "might not be a bad thing since strong governments in countries bordering the Soviet Union have generally been better able to resist Soviet domination."
Time and again when the shah took a critical step toward autocratic rule, they either applauded and justified his action or maintained an approving silence, explaining their behavior as "non-interference." The position of the Foreign Office was similar. On November 1, 1947, the shah had solicited the British ambassador's advice regarding changes in the constitution.57 After much discussion with the Foreign Office, Ambassador Le Rougetel concurred that the composition of the XVth Majlis made it virtually impossible for the shah's government to reform the administration or to enact a constructive economic policy.58 No reference was made, however, to the fact that only a few weeks earlier the same Majlis had demonstrated its willingness to collaborate with the shah by deposing Prime Minister Qavam, who was the founder and leader of the political party through which most of the deputies had entered the Majlis.
7.
The third step toward the reestablishment of autocracy was taken in April 1949, when a constitutional assembly was hastily and undemocratically convened and the constitution amended to grant greater power to the shah. The assembly was precipitated, in part, by an assassination attempt on the shah two months earlier.
Confirming the forecast of Ambassador Wiley that henceforth "the shah will rule and not merely reign, the monarch reduced the powers of the prime minister further by personally presiding over cabinet meetings. Wiley, reporting on his conversation with a former Iranian prime minister, stated that the shah was dedicating himself to the minutiae of administration. n even the smallest detail he was communicating directive, even to section heads. He was . . . wasting his energy and time and undermining government coordination.The worst phase of the situation, according to [former Prime Minister] Ali Mansur, was the fact that the shah was so badly entoure. He was surrounded by sycophantic advisors who were constantly urging [upon] him the necessity of increasing his royal prerogatives, exercising authority and ruling in the pattern of his late father. He had been given the concept of regal strength on a basis of weakness of the government; namely, that the shah would be strong in the measure in which the government would be weak....
...
9.
Having revised the constitution in his favor and taken direct command of the executive branch, the shah focused his attention on the legislative branch, with the intent of making it completely dependent upon himself. In September 1949, the U.S. ambassador reported that the shah had cast aside his plans for free elections for the XVlth Majlis because he believed that: corrupt and venal political influences were effectively working to take improper advantage of free elections. The shah was now convinced that with the great illiteracy among and backwardness of the great mass of Iranian people any application of electoral principles of Western democracies would be premature and bad. His Imperial Majesty63 was determined to have a Majlis with which he could work in harmony. He intended moreover to make considerable reforms of governmental structure but he wanted me to be completely assured that he had no idea whatsoever of setting up a dictatorship.64
10.
Despite his assurances to Ambassador Wiley, the shah was indeed bent on setting up a dictatorship. Gradually he removed all semblance of independence from the Majlis, the judiciary, the press, political parties, trade unions, universities, professional associations, and even the chambers of commerce. Thus no institution or public figure remained who could question his decisions and actions. One would have thought Great Britain and the United States, being themselves democracies, would have expressed sympathy for constitutional government in Iran. But they decided that a "stable autocratic monarchy" better protected their interests in Iran than an "unstable constitutional monarchy."
| Recently by Masoud Kazemzadeh | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Great News for the PMOI, and Terrible News for the Terrorist Regime | 7 | Sep 22, 2012 |
| On the Lawsuit “Trita Parsi and NIAC v. Hassan Daieoleslam.” | 18 | Sep 15, 2012 |
| For Ali P: Khomeini, the Shah, and Sanjabi | 3 | Aug 09, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Parham: Agreed. I,
by vildemose on Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:55 AM PDTParham: Agreed. I, however, would like the JM to first believe in itself as a viable opposition and second inject a new vision of how the country and the average joe will benefit/prosper under the JM's policies for economic, national, social and civil securities. They should also acknowledge their past mistakes. It would a be sign of their strength not weakness. There should also be a 'lesson learned' newsletter. They should start campaigning as if they are running as a future candidate against MEK, Monarchists, Reformists, and so on.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx
Sanjabi was another confused guy
by Siavash300 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:38 AM PDTSanjabi appeared on state T.V condemned Bakhtiar for taking side with shah and establishing government. He publically dismissed him from J.M.
Later on when things didn't work out and he appeared on T.V and resigned from his position in provisional government. That was the time J.M started to appreciate Bakhtiar.
Re "A Matter of Principles"
by Parham on Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:08 AM PDTIf I remember correctly, and the messages are there for one to refer to, the conversation was about JM being the main opposition, and not the main democratic opposition. If that were the case, it would be correct to state that JM was actually (and unfortunately) the only democratic opposition!
I also think history showed that the true main opposition was actually the politically illiterate, irrationally religious masses. Not the Islamist Marxists as the Shah feared them, not the over-hyped Tudeh or the Fadayian-e Khalgh whom more or less everyone confused with the Mojahedin (or at least thought of as the same), OR Jebhe Melli. Saying that the consideration is not in terms of numbers is a bit absurd, as political groups are usually strong by means of numbers of effective supporters, not other criteria.
A blog
by religionoutofgovernment on Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:28 AM PDTThanks Vildemose. I will start a blog tonight when I am back from my son'e Bparty!
A Matter of Principles
by religionoutofgovernment on Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:26 AM PDTParham and MM, thank you for your comments. Let me explain why I think this issue is so important. It is because we are talking about PRINCIPLES for the MAIN and ONLY democratic alternative in Iran for many decades prior to 1979. Like Mr. Kazemzadeh, I also believe JB WAS the main and only democratic opposition, despite small size and low numbers at times, because they had the winning PRINCIPLES. This was until the likes of Mr. Sanjabi destroyed their legacy.
In recent Iranian history, there were 4 main political alternatives:
1) Shah and totalitarianism
2) The Mulla's and religious rule
3) Tudeh party and other communists
4) JM with a democratic legacy of Mosaddegh
Do you see why they were the only democratic alternative, despite their low numbers at times.
What are those principles that defined this viable alternative?
1) Democracy 2) Secularism 3) Following the constitution.
It is hard to argue with JM pro-democracy and pro 1906 constitution position. I also contend that JM was as secular as they could have been. Mosaddegh rejected the demands of Kashani, JM did not side with Khomeini in 1963 and they had an inclusive membership which included the likes of Maleki.
Why were the actions of Sanjabi so detrimental to JM? Because he undermined all three of these principles. Why is this important now? Because JM has lost its legacy based on the above 3 principles. It NO LONGER has the position of the only viable democratic alternative. People don't forget!!
Main opposition group didn't know khomaini's view ..!!!
by Siavash300 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:20 AM PDT"Dr. Boroumand, who was one of the closest JM members to Khomeini, states that he was NOT aware of Khomeini’s views until he met his for the first time in Paris. " M.K
خداوند به شما عمر طولانی عنایات فرماید
@religionoutofgovernment on
by vildemose on Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:10 AM PDT@religionoutofgovernment on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:49 PM PDT
Please make your scathing and well-reasoned retort into a diary/blog. It's a very important topic and worthy of wider exposure. Deeply insightful and educational. Thanks.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx
religionoutofgovernment
by MM on Sun Jul 31, 2011 09:58 AM PDTI am following this debate with interest and thank you for a civil conversation. My dad used to tell me that the people on the streets ca. 1953 had two hats (more if consider Tudeh and the religious sect) and depending on the conditions offered on a particular day, they would go out screaming zendeh baad .... or mordeh baad....
I watched the videos and it seemed to me that JM was just about politics as much as principles. For example, in the forth video two statements by Boroumand stood out:
* After signing the 3-titled JM proclamation - Boroumand proclaimed that "It is too late now , but if we had stood against the Mullahs and told the people who they really were, we could have save Iran" (1:44 - "age vay-mistadim and migoftim "akhoond ya'ni cheh", shayad nejat midadim").
* While visiting Sanjabi and Forouhar in confinement, in the presence of Arteshbod Moghaddam - While Boroumand was negociating with Khomeini on the conditions of a change in the country, Boroumand told Moghaddam that Mr Sanjabi had done an excellent job in signing the 3-titled JM proclamation calling Monarchy naa-mashroo', and if the Shah came back to the constitution, he will be mashroo' again, at which point, Sanjabi concurred (3:......).
If the two JM factions come clean, and most importantly join forces, they will be a viable force against the Mullahs, especially now that the west is trying to erect the MEK as the ones who believe in human rights and/or free&fair elections is a central element in MEK's platform.
Not many of us remember 1950’s and and after 32 years, things seem a bid cloudy. So, it is best to look for the future with hambastegi and one voice against the undemocratic voices of IRI/MEK.
One issue with MK
by Parham on Sun Jul 31, 2011 08:49 AM PDTMasoud jan, at one point in your message, you state:
"Most people in 1977 regarded JM as the main opposition. This was shared by many including us, the Shah, many communists, and Khomeini and his supporters."
The way I remember, (at least) the Shah and SAVAK considered what they called "marxist haye eslami" (which probably meant Mojahedin) as the "main" opposition to get rid of. Jebhe Melli wasn't much in the forefront at all at the time. In fact, if you think about it, if JM really wanted to continue "Mossadegh's way" as it has always been claimed, it should have started being vocal sometime after 28 Mordad 1332 --granted it was very much dismantled after the coup, so let's say we give it a little time to gather its forces again-- and operate thereafter.
True, people like Bakhtiar, Forouhar, etc. were there, but there wasn't much momentum behind the democratic movement after 1332 in general anyway. What really matters is that the momentum never gathered even thereafter in the sixties and the seventies, so I doubt that history will remember Jebhe Melli as the main opposition movement, if even one of the main movements at all. In other words, I think this use of Mossadegh's good image was, to say the least, and unfortunately, wasted to a large degree.
But then I personally don't attribute that to JM, particularly. It's just that people seemed to have exchanged the idea of democracy with material wealth/comfort and never seemed to have any problem with that.
This is something that we still see if we base our opinion on messages exchanged on this site alone...
religionoutofgovernment
by Parham on Sun Jul 31, 2011 07:29 AM PDTThat's a very well-written rebuttal and I agree with the majority of what you say in your message.
I should only take issue with one claim, which apparently comes out of Yekrangi -- and I haven't read that book in some twenty-something years now, but I take your word when you say your claim is based on it.
Outward support for Bakhtiar, as far as I remember, never did reach the "hundreds of thousands" out in the streets. The most I remember was the day everyone was called to Amjadieh (20,000 capacity), and the stadium wasn't full yet when the thugs attacked to disperse everyone. I am not saying Bakhtiar didn't have hundreds of thousands of supporters, but the most I saw them show up was that day at Amjadieh.
If he did have the amount you cite, they were rather dormant supporters, not active ones. It has been said, and it's most likely true, that if everyone knew about the call to Amjadieh, there would have been so much more showing up there, but then that didn't happen, and the call was made only one afternoon for the same day, so not many people found out that there will be a demonstration in his favor...
As to your attributing opportunism to Sanjabi's moves in those days, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I also see M. Kazemzadeh's point in saying that revolutionary fervor had taken everyone, or almost, and Khomeyni was "marketed" as sort of a religious Gandhi (the same way, for example, Mr. Dabashi nowadays compares Mr. Mousavi to Mandela!) -- a peaceful old faithful man fighting for the rights of his countrymen out of exile, actually even declaring that there will be democracy and freedom after the fall of the monarchy and that clerics will only crawl into their corners and mind their religion. After all, people can change after 15 years in exile (or after 15 years, period) and I believe many people fell for that. What I mean is, let's not undermine the effect of that maneuvering... Bakhtiar himself speaks of Khomeyni in videos that are available on YouTube as someone one would deem very respectable; I think he even mentions him as "moazzam-ollah" in one interview. That is to say how this image of Khomeyni had overshadowed so many realities, even in the eyes of non-believers.
I would only add one thing to the discussion -- it is rue, in my opinion, that Dr. Sanjabi in those days turned coats and went down the road he shouldn't have (out of opportunism or whatever else you would like to call it), but honestly, that was not what sealed the fate of the revolution. In fact, far from that. That was just a meaningless move in an ocean of other events that in fact did turn the revolution into what it turned out to be.
Kind regards.
Dr. Kazemzadeh,
by religionoutofgovernment on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:49 PM PDTI actually agree with you on many of your views but your arguments have not answered several important issues that many Iranian are struggling with and our history demands an explanation
Shah and Khomeini = bad
I agree. Although, I think there are many shades of grey. But generally agree.
Namir ie Dr. Bakhtiar and Dr. Boroumand = Good
150% agree. More than you think.
JM = Good????
I am not so sure!
If JM is democratic, and if it wants to be a viable political force in the future of democratic Iran, it should be acting as a framework of ideas. It should embrace differences of opinion and reconcile with its past mistakes. It should respect the PUBLIC OPINION and the WISDOM OF THE CROWD, which are the basis for democracy. To win the PUBLIC OPINION, JM has to confront the questions regarding cooperation with Khomeini.
You can answer point by point and feel good about it personally, but this is not a personal attack. Consider me as a potential party member, a possible voter, or a small segment of the PUBLIC OPINION. I really want to be convinced, but your arguments have not succeeded to convince me of several important issues:
You cannot justify the ignorance of JM about the Mullas. You try to blame this on the Shah and that he banned Khomeini's books. Firstly, this was not about Khomeini alone, but about the mulla's ideology. JM knew very well the likes of Fazlollah Nouri, Kashani, Fadaian Eslam and even Khomeini. Their agenda had been issues such as (banning) women's voting rights, Hejab for women, opposing land reform and killing the Bahai's. Weren't these demands made to Mossadegh as a prime minister by Kashani? Didn't they issue fatwas against women's suffrage when they thought Mossadegh might be giving them voting rights? Didn't Khomeini demand the same issues of land reform and women's suffrage in the 1963 events? Didn't JM at that time vote not to support Khomeini (Yekrangi) ? Didn't JM members listen to the garbage tapes of Shariati and Jalal al Ahmad circulating before the revolution? Didn't they read Khomeini's Velayate Faghih? Fast forward to 1978-79 and the same Khomeini is now pro-democracy and will hand over the government to JM? Wishful thinking, as Mr. Boroumand saw in the smile of Mr. Sanjabi which he describes as "Ablahane".
I don't know how you can ignore the conflict between Sanjabi and bakhtiar, which was never resolved. Sanjabi was a man who told Boroumand he was going to USE Khomeini to get to power. When the Shah offered him to become prime minister, he could not deny the inevitable involvement of Khomeini in any future government (Harvard iran Oral History project, Tape 25, his words). He clearly wanted to reach his goals using any means, including sleeping with Khomeini. I call this opportunism and Machiavellianism.
In contrast, Dr. Bakhtiar was a man of principles. Yes, he also disliked the Shah and his tyranny, but knew very well the mullas were going to be worse. He believed and fought for the 1906 Monarchist constitution, as did JM prior to that time. He believed in Secular Democracy when Sanjabi was talking about an "Islamic and National movement" in his 3 part Paris declaration. I find your argument of the Islamic republic of Pakistan, nothing but an insult to the intelligence of the readers. The contrast in vision, knowledge, character and legacy are undeniable.
When Bakhtiar freed all political prisoners, gave freedom of the press, abolished SAVAK and had a totally democratic government that JM had wanted for years, Mr Sanjabi and the crew back-stabbed him. In the meantime pro-democracy rallies in support of Bakhtiar were reaching hundreds of thousands in numbers (Yekrangi), but Mr. Sanjabi was busy attending the Ashura rally in which the pictures of Mosaddegh were being torn.
Thirty year later, it is easy for you to write in this website how they were both correct and you support both of them. But again, please give our intelligence some credit and rethink the elitist attitude.
The real question is whether JM realizes these issues are important in the minds of Iranian people and choses to democratically address the past. Or whether it will continue with the same dogmatic approach to glorifying everything related to an ideological organization. This is what you expect from MKO not JM.
Sir, before you say I am "Soooo Wrong " and before you "Daah" me, I ask you to remove your JM colored glasses and see the real question and the conflict in the minds of millions of Iranians. Remember, you may think you won an argument on this webpage by reciting historical minutiae, yet lose in the minds of those who are potential JM supporters and want a recognition of the truth.
In the end, I am going to leave you with this video:
Monarchy (The Best) founder of Human Rights, Republic (2nd Best)
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sat Jul 30, 2011 07:13 PM PDTSome what Democratic (with out question legitimate) good for both republics and monarchies,
provided it can be implemented. so as to not remove freedom and justice as it does for the vast majority of countries that have democracy and are not even developed with institutions to give people choices in place of deceit and manipulation.
Ever been to a non developed country with democracy? Go to Haiti for just one week and come back and tell me.
Democracy (JM, NAMIR) Good; Dictatorship (Shah, Khomeini) bad
by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Sat Jul 30, 2011 03:36 PM PDTReligionoutofgovernment:
ROOG:
Mr. Kazemzadeh, here is the refutal of every single one of your points. Please watch all 4 videos. Regarding Mr. Sanjabi see the beginning of part 4:
MK: Thank you for posting the interview with Dr. Boroumand. I watched all 4 parts. They do show clearly that you are all wrong with one partial exception.
Dr. Boroumand states that he met Khomeini for the FIRST time in Paris. Khomeini was in Paris only for about 4 months before coming to Iran in Feb 1979. By October 1978, Khomeini had emerged as the top person in the opposition.
Lets review and see how the content of the interview with Dr. Boroumand and the list of my points match up.
1. How old were you in 1978?
MK: Interview had nothing to do with this.
2. Under the Shah, there was extreme censorship. So, much of Khomeini’s writings were not available to people to read.
I am 100% right. The interview actually PROVES my point. Here Dr. Boroumand, who was one of the closest JM members to Khomeini, states that he was NOT aware of Khomeini’s views until he met his for the first time in Paris.
3. Most activists ignored Khomeini because they regarded his to be a very minor figure. Also the Shah and SAVAK regarded Khomeini and his supporters as minor. That is why the Shah unleashed much of SAVAK violence against JM members in 1977-1978.
Dr. Borumand is stating that EVEN AS LATE AS late 1978 (circa Nov 1978), Dariush Forohar told him that they could take care of Khomeini and Dr. Sanjabi said that Khomeini could be outmanuvered. It is a FACT that the Shah had concentrated SAVAK’s violent repression against JM leaders. This included bombing the homes and offices of Dr. Sanjabi and others.
4. Most people in 1977 regarded JM as the main opposition. This was shared by many including us, the Shah, many communists, and Khomeini and his supporters.
ACTUALLY, the interview proves my point. In part 3, minutes 8:50-9:20 , Dr. Boroumand says that Khomeini explicitly told him that: "shoma ha betavanid hokumat konid." And that he (Khomeini) would go to Qom.
Khomeini had told the same thing to Dr. Sanjabi when they met in Paris.
5. Due to a variety of factors, JM’s popularity declined between early 1978 and the time of the revolution.
Actually I am 100% right. And this interview not only does not refute my view, but provides one specific example. On part 4, at 4:30, Dr. Boroumand says that the Shah had the head of SAVAK take Dr. Sanjabi from prison to the Shah and the Shah asked him to be the prime minister. Dr. Sanjabi made only two demands: one was for the Shah to "temporarily leave" Iran and that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be decided by the PM. Dr. Sanjabi even told the Shah that the Shah could choose Minister of Defense!!!! And the moron Shah refused this!!!!!!!!!!
The Shah had destroyed the constitution, imposed his brutal savage tyranny, committed treason again and again and again. And as late as Nov 1978, Dr. Sanjabi was soooooooooooo committed to Iran’s national interests that he was willing to forgive this savage traitor monster, and say that he could "temporarily" leave Iran and could even choose the Minster of Defense. If it was up to me, I would have told the murder of Dr. Fatemi the following. Khaen kasif, az Iran aziz ma boro gomsho. [Filthy traitor, get lost from our beloved Iran].
What is AMAZING is that the Shah was not willing to accept the very mild conditions that Dr. Sanjabi presented!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do YOU see how STUPID and khaen the Shah was????????
The Shah should have accepted JM’s demands in June 1977. By August 1978, JM could have save Iran and made a transition to democracy. But the Shah was khaen, tyrant, and moron. He pursued many policies that undermined the democratic forces and helped Khomeini and extremist forces.
By Nov 1978, it was probably too late the save the situation. By Dec 1978, one could not save the situation. Instead of accepting JM’s demands, the Shah kept oppressing us, and kept mass murdering the people.
6. What was available were Khomeini’s messages from Iraq and then France (via BBC).
This is true. Dr. Broumand and Dr. Sanjabi met Khomeini for the FIRST time in Paris.
7. Dr. Sanjabi went to France and talked directly with Khomeini. Khomeini directly LIED to Dr. Sanjabi and said that he wants JM people to be the next government.
This is 100% true. Khomeini also said this to Dr. Boroumand. The interview proves my point. Helooooooo.
8. JM did not know that Khomeini supported Sheikh Fazlollah Noursi. In France, Khomeini supported the 1906 Constitution and condemned the Shah for violating it. JM did not know that Khomeini opposed Mossadegh and sided with the 1953 coup. We found that out after the revolution.
The sole partial exception to my assertion is that Khomeini told Dr. Boroumand that he (Khomeini) regarded Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri as a holy man. In his interviews, Khomeini repeatedly condemned the Shah for violating the 1906 constitution.
In this interview as well as in many others, Khomeini did not say one negative thing about Dr. Mossadegh BEFORE Feb 1979.
9. JM like all other people could not imagine that an old religious figure presumably fearful of God and wishing to go to heaven and avoid hell, would behave like Hitler after coming to power and would lie and lie and lies and lie in order to get his fascist genocidal hands on power.
Dr. Boroumand says that after his first meeting with Khomeini in Paris, he formed the opinion that he was not a holy man deserving of getting khoms, zakat, and sahm imam. That was shared his opinion with other JM leaders inside Iran, and that they dismissed his concerns. No body could know before Khomeini committed his atrocities, that he would be a more tyrannical man than the Shah.
The fact of the matter is that BOTH the Shah and Khomeini proved to be savage brutal tyrants. No one could know in January 1979, the Khomeini was worse than the Shah. At best, one could speculate that one or the other is worse.
The point is that both savage tyrannies of monarchy and Islamic fundamentalism are bad. Both deserved and deserve to be sent to the garbage can of history.
JM and NAMIR are composed of decent, democratic Iranians.
10. If I remember correctly, Andrew Young, the U.S. ambassador to the UN (who was a close friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) called Khomeini "Iran’s Gandhi""!!!!!! Soon, what so many assumed was Gandhi turned out to be a fascistic genocidal psychopath.
I rest my case.
Masoud
Well said Darius.
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sat Jul 30, 2011 03:22 PM PDTIt never came to my mind to go underground and kill a police officer
or bad mouth Shah to be a vatan parast or a Mokhalef.
You made us to leave our home and still have guts to claim Shah was
bad and have no courage to admit your mistake and apologize.
You are so miserable that cannot see anyone ever give a little credit or
praise a dead man.This alone disqualify you for governing people
I agree,
It is not that they are just disingenuous or just partisan, they are unable too,
unable to experience the emotion of painful regret, how nice iran would become if more iranians could experience it in farsi its pashimooneh dardnak, and with out that ability they should stop asking for anything ad realize why most people are ot uniting with them and why more and more people are becoming monarchists, like myself after my 20's were over and realities set in.
It was not intent to insult anyone.
by Siavash300 on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:48 AM PDT"if you're going to insult IC members education" Truthseekers
My comment was not intent to insult anyone. My apology. I still have hard time for mispelling and sometimes writing in English.
JM opportunists and not victims
by religionoutofgovernment on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:35 AM PDTMr. Kazemzadeh has prevously given the following reasons for the Khianat of Mr. sanjabi:
//iranian.com/main/2010/nov/sanjabi-khome...
1. How old were you in 1978?
2. Under the Shah, there was extreme censorship. So, much of Khomeini’s writings were not available to people to read.
3. Most activists ignored Khomeini because they regarded his to be a very minor figure. Also the Shah and SAVAK regarded Khomeini and his supporters as minor. That is why the Shah unleashed much of SAVAK violence against JM members in 1977-1978.
4. Most people in 1977 regarded JM as the main opposition. This was shared by many including us, the Shah, many communists, and Khomeini and his supporters.
5. Due to a variety of factors, JM’s popularity declined between early 1978 and the time of the revolution.
6. What was available were Khomeini’s messages from Iraq and then France (via BBC).
7. Dr. Sanjabi went to France and talked directly with Khomeini. Khomeini directly LIED to Dr. Sanjabi and said that he wants JM people to be the next government.
8. JM did not know that Khomeini supported Sheikh Fazlollah Noursi. In France, Khomeini supported the 1906 Constitution and condemned the Shah for violating it. JM did not know that Khomeini opposed Mossadegh and sided with the 1953 coup. We found that out after the revolution.
9. JM like all other people could not imagine that an old religious figure presumably fearful of God and wishing to go to heaven and avoid hell, would behave like Hitler after coming to power and would lie and lie and lies and lie in order to get his fascist genocidal hands on power.
10. If I remember correctly, Andrew Young, the U.S. ambassador to the UN (who was a close friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) called Khomeini "Iran’s Gandhi""!!!!!! Soon, what so many assumed was Gandhi turned out to be a fascistic genocidal psychopath.
Mr. Kazemzadeh, here is the refutal of every single one of your points. Please watch all 4 videos. Regarding Mr. Sanjabi see the beginning of part 4:
Some people shoot themselves in the foot
by Truthseeker9 on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:27 AM PDT"... neither some of these people who are writing literature on I.C or some who making deragotory comments. Education makes the person powerful to make a proper decision"
Aziz, if you're going to insult IC members education just for voicing their opinion, learn to spell. It's "derogatory" not deragotory.
Shah was smart leader, God bless his soul
by Siavash300 on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:27 AM PDTJust take a look at his paragraph and any rational person can concludes what was going on. Paragraph 3 reads:
"By September 1943, the monarch was issuing orders directly to the General Staff, thus undermining the constitutional authority of the minister of war." He justified this seizure of executive powers by contending that constitutional government was premature for Iran. In December 1944, the shah had said to the visiting Averell Harriman: "The country could not be truly democratic, which he desired, until the people had acquired sufficient education to understand the principle of democratic government and be able to form intelligent individual opinion."'12 context of the period "
100% agree with shah's opinion. 90% was illetracy rate among iranian back in 40's. That means only 10% of society could read or write. That was the reason shah with higher education from Swiss made huge difference in Iran's history. Fight with illetracy was shah's main objective. In that the troops of education were sent to villages and small town to educate people. Because of shah's deligent efforts the illetracy rate dropped to 45% by the end of 70's. That means 45%(almost half of our population still couldn't read or wrtie. what a smart idea. "...the people did not have sufficient education to understand the principle of ..........." Yes, your majesty, neither some of these people who are writing literature on I.C or some who making deragotory comments. Education makes the person powerful to make a proper decision. When the person doesn't have it some one else should make decision for her/him. That is just simple. I don't understand why some people just don't get it.
dariusYour wirtings has
by Babak K. on Sat Jul 30, 2011 08:11 AM PDTdarius
Your wirtings has some good points in it, then also a lots of just personal and non-scientific opinions.
Even Shah himself does not defend himself the way you defend him (just listen to his last speech to Iranians), where he admits some wrong doings. Darius Iran was a country with no political party opreating freely. Shah and his father had very little regard to the law and the contitution of the land, and they were always above the law.
You wrote"... Savak never knocked at your door...". On this Darius, I must ask you how you can write such a thing? I hate to do this, but shame on you.
religionoutofgovernment
by Parham on Sat Jul 30, 2011 06:11 AM PDTThose are good questions indeed.
Except you probably mean "JM" (and not "JB") in your second message, correct?
Right Again Masoud!
by P_J on Fri Jul 29, 2011 08:08 PM PDTOnce again we are having this useless discussion with a bunch of shahollah/ hezbollahis that are trying, unsuccessfully, to rewrite history, not realizing that Shah was the greatest ally of Khomeini, and both are ROOMMATES in HELL now!
Had it not been for the atrocities committed by Shah and the CORRUPTION of The Pahlavi Criminal Enterprise, we would not have ended up with the BACKWARD THINKING, STONED Age group of criminal mullahs, like Khomeini and his allies.
Mankind does not live in vacuum!!! Actions always bring reactions, not only in the physical world but also in society and in social intercourse, as we have experienced it in Iran!
As there are, STILL, hard core communists in Russia that celebrate Stalin’s birthday and are nostalgic about his brutal rule, we seem to have the same type of individuals, Shahollahis, who are reminiscing and nostalgic about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi whose regime brought about and created such an unhealthy, BRUTAL environment/atmosphere that EMPOWERED low lives that are running our beloved country!
DEMOCROCY is the only solution, not more MONORCHY or THEOCROCY!
We did it to ourselves
by darius on Fri Jul 29, 2011 08:04 PM PDTDr. Kazemzadeh, Thank you
by Babak K. on Fri Jul 29, 2011 06:43 PM PDTDr. Kazemzadeh,
Thank you for the article. I hope that everybody can realize that there is not and never will be a good Estebdad, they are all bad and costly for all the generations to come. I really believe that it was the Zsar Nikoli II that brought the Bolshaviks to power in Raussia not Lenin. It was him that paved the way for the communists to come to power by his Estebdad, and abandonning the constitution of 1905 revolution. Likewise, it was the Pahlavi dynasty that by their Estebdad prepared the country to fall into hands of Ahreeman Khomeini.
Babak K.
Excellent blog
by Mammad on Fri Jul 29, 2011 06:43 PM PDTLet history revisionists, fabricators, and permanent residents of ivory tower and vacuum say what they want. The fact of the matter is:
Regime-e velaayat-e faghih farzand-e khalaf-e regime-e Pahlavi ast.
Mammad
Shah did not establish brutal tyranny, Savak was Necessary
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 05:42 PM PDTShah wouldn't even order his troops to protect themselves when the Mullahs, Tudeh, JM, united and the people marched to bring down years of freedom and success.
If you want to name a tyranny, first you need to know the definition of it!!!
Obvious no?
Tyranny is not outlawing political parties that kill people to gain power like mullahs or Tudeh or removing leaders that committ treason like Mossadegh.
Tyrants aren't busy giving away their land to farmers, raising peoples standard of living, building hospitals or paying for people to go to university.
Tyrants have to have absolute power, which the shah did not have.
They need to be able to use that absolute power to be able to break agreements they made with others.
If you were describing the Empire of the United States and its tyrannical conduct in betraying the shah, that would make sense. They have and use absolute power with total disregard to friend or foe, agreement or alliance. This is what makes republics score so poorly in comparison to the secular monarchy of the shah.
I don't know why I feel so much compassion so as to help people grow out of their self imposed ignorance. Sometimes it can be quite tiring, but I feel that Iranians need all the help they can get, especially those of a pro-republic view point. Lets restore the monarchy first, then I can pay to help you attai more knowledge and not suffer from being so ignorant. I'll create a special program just for you and togehter we can help so many use their own minds out of their suffering, instead of betraying the one thing that helped them... the institution of the monarchy.
Dr. Bakhtiar's book
by religionoutofgovernment on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:11 AM PDTFor those who are interested, you can download a free copy of Dr. Bakhtiar's book. CLick this link:
//www.4shared.com/document/v2aeuoyK/yekrangi-bakhtiar.html
I can't figure out how and when his organization, NAMIR, joined the JM. How did they resolve their issues, when he was so bitter about what they did to him and to our country? Another question for Mr. Kazemzadeh.
Darius is right
by omeedvar on Fri Jul 29, 2011 03:50 PM PDTBazargan in his first speech after the revolution said, " We have inherited a huge fortune, by that I don't mean the oil, but a lot of infrastructures, and modern facilities. We must takecare of them, and improve it further".
Unfortunately, JM took charge of a progressive country, and due to nadanam kari, handed it to Mullahs, and started their second marriage, as Bazargan said when khomeini removed him from the office!
During the revolution, Tude party members who were cooperating with Mullahs, used to say that "Khomeini and Mullahs, like buldozer, will pave the way for us to take the power". I think both Tude and JM paved the way for Mullahs to grab the power!
Actually This article is 100% biased. Wishful thinking too.
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 01:30 PM PDTShah brought more freedom and progress for iranians than they had ever enjoyed and the shah only assumed more powers "after" Mossadeghs betrayal of the shah and Iran.
Assuming more power was a logical response to help iran progress against foreign domination after mossadegh betrayed the constitution, not the other way around.
Democrats, more and more are realizing the greatness of the shah based on where iran was at.Time has strengthened the monarchy, but not mossadegh.
Very few people in Iran wish Mossadegh had won, the truth is Iranians biggest regret is not siding with the shah, as they miss freedom and progress and allowing mullahs to assume power. The article is not in harmony with the truth of experience.
A little more lying and you may get a ribbon for 12th place.
Question for Mr. Kazemzadeh
by religionoutofgovernment on Fri Jul 29, 2011 02:19 PM PDTYour points about the shah and his violations of "our constitution" are well taken. I always enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your knowledge. However, as a truly impartial iranian, whose only accepted principal is Secular Demoacracy with no or little prejudices and bias, I have found several discrepancies on your part.
Question. The article states "violation of our constitution". My understanding of the beliefs of Dr. Bakhtiar and Dr. Mossadegh is that they also believed in the 1906 constitution and wanted the Shah to just reign, hence his "violations". What is the stance of Jebhe Melli at this time? Which constitution are you supporting now?
The strength of Jebhe Melli had been their stance in support of the 1906 contitutions and insisting that the Shah should only reign. That constitution may not have been perfect but was definitely better than the unknown, as Dr. Bakhtiar stated many times, and as he believed until his death.
Related to this issue of constitution, is also the credibility damage that Jebhe Melli sustained when they did not support Dr. Bakhtiar. I have read your explanation of Mr. Sanjabi's actions and find them very convoluted. The fact is just like Shah who did not recover from 28 Mordad, Jebhe Melli may not recover from Mr. Sanjabi's actions. It is my observation that many in Iran perceive Jebhe Melli as Khaens, because of their cooperated with Khomeini. Please do not take this personal.
You have stated many times that we did not know the results of their actions, and it was possible that if Shapour Baphtiar had succeeded, Shah could have some back with more tyranny. I find this logic disturbing. It is not pricinple minded. Were they all opportunists for whom the end justified the means? What about principles of honesty, democracy, believing in the constitutions and the rule of law and knowledge of Khomeini's past, despite political consequences.
I have not been able to find any official comments on these issues in Jebhe Melli websites. To remain a viable force in Iranian politics, Jebhe Melli needs to take a stance in the JM vs Bakhtiar historical conflict.
Again, these are questions in the minds of many of us. Thank you again for your contributions.
Iran’s history is one
by Iran 2050 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 07:38 AM PDTIran’s history is one tragic story of brutal kings, going back to the days of Koroush all the way till Khamenei (Who is nothing but a king with a different title), brutalizing and destroying Iran, its psyche and its future.
Its very sad. The tyranny in us is result of this extreme tyrannical socio-politcial structure Iran had and has for the last 2500 years.