Focus Visually On Iran

Parham

• //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karim_Khan

Who's Karim Kahan??

I'm all for that democracy! Bede biad!

Parham

As far as I know you did not do anything nor did you get anything! On the other hand you stuck your hand in IC! I hope to have a glass or rather a case of Aragh with you back in Iran. A democratic one! Then we can slug it out over whether Mossadegh was better or Karim Kahan :-)

Prophet

What did I do to deserve this, actually?? : )
Cheers with the Scotch...

Parham

What did I do to deserve that jab? I am still working on my case; only managed to get through half of it. And mine is of good Scotch :-)

Prophet

It never does with people like you guys around! : )

Parham Jan

I bet your case must have got a good deal of rest :-)

Like I said...

I rest my case! : )

Summary of my discussion with Parham

Western media and people such as Yazdi murder and Rajavi gang created false image of Dr. Mosadegh's character. Christian Amanpoor, Steven Kinzer made millions on the misery of Iranian people by lying to the public. Steven Kinzer fabricated Iran history in his book "All shah's men". In his 256 pages book nothing had been said about the role Tudeh party played in those days. Hegemony of USSR in the region had been ignored and gave false image of Dr.Mosadegh. Propaganda and falsification goes to the extend that Madam Olbright apologized to ruling Islamic thugs in Iran for supporting democracy in 1953. Stupid woman. The outcomes would have been as follow:

Outcome of shah returned in 1953-monarchy : (WRITTEN ESSAY) Prosperity, wealth and modernization of our country that everybody witnessed by late 70's

Outcome of Mosadegh and tudeh party being on power: (UNwritten essay) : most likey Natasha on streets of Dubie and Turkey

Outcome of Islamic Republic (WRITTEN ESSAY): Fatima on streets of Turkey and Dubie.

Last question that frequently comes to the mind of any resonable person:

Do we have right to despise a man who was trying to ousted our king and pushing our country towaard misery or rahter Soviet Block?

P.S

Natasha is slang for prostitutes who migrates to Turkey and Dubie for earning money because of high degree of poverty in Democratic countries such as former USSR.

Fatima is slang for prostitutes who migrates to Turkey and Dubie for earning money becase of high degree of poverty in Islamic countries such as Iran.

!

Siavash: "They were the ones who were pro-shah in 1953..."

I rest my case.

Siavash is right

At least in the 60s and 70s majority of Iranians were morons. That includes sepcially the educated an-tellectuals. Those were the worst. Since they were the "ankas the nadana va nadanad ke nadanad". At least the dahati knew they were ignorant. But the "an-tellectuals" were ignorant of their stupidity. Thus they created the hell known as IRI. With that population I say f*** democracy; bring back the shah and give him a big chomagh!

Democracy

requires a few things to work. Otherwise we should stick to dictatorship.

• A strong contsitution with a Bill of Rights. This will protect the minority from tyrrany of the majority.
• An educated population. Otherwise they get manipulated and vote for whoever has the best ads.
• Public funding of elections. That allows all sides to put forward their agenda not just the best funded.

My two cents.

VPK

Yes, my friend, we had those. They were the ones, not U.S Brits

Yes, they were those who saw Khaminie's picture on the surface of moon and some of them found his hair in koran. They were the ones who were pro-shah in 1953 and they were against shah in 1979. They are the same who is holding mullahs on power these days. I am surprised you didn't know that.  They had zero tolerance for opposed idea and different type of thinking. They are the ones.

And thanks to what ACTUALLY (not theoretically) happened...

... we have those same people throwing stones at Bahai houses ruling us! Great...

Thanks for proving my point.

Democracy and vivid examples for Parham

"since a lot of people were illiterate, they didn't have a right to democracy? " Parham

Democracy consists of 2 words:

A. Demo, means people

B. Cracy, means ruling power.

In democracy, people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives, the principle of eqality of rights, opportunity and treatment.

Yes, there is a pre-requisites for establishing democracy. One of the factors is education. The 2nd factor which is equally important is believe system of the people.

In 1954, my mother was passing through a street in southern Tehran,where my family resided in that time. She saw a crowd of people gathering in one place in the front of a house and throwing stones to the house. Curiosly she asked the reason from one of those people in the crowd. She soon found out that house belong to a family who were Bahaii. The crowd were stoning Bahaii's house. Seemed they were thinking that was their right to do so.  I am sure none of those people in the crowd were college educated. Now, you may arguing with me how do I know the majority of those people were uneducated. You may view majority of that crowd holding PH.D or M.D  degrees and at the same time they were throwing stone to the house of family whose thinking system were different than them. You may say yes they are entitle to democracy and ruling power. No matter of what.  Yes, you may be right. You are entitle to your opinion, but I don't buy it. That is vivid example. Now, another example is my brother in law who is still alive. He said that he also throw stone one evening to Bahaii's house in 1952 when he was 17 year old. He said the family was nice people but he was young and stupid and heard they had get together that evening in that house. Even though he is educated now, but I still see some rigidity of thinking in many areas of his views, discussions. That goes to the society that one man always made decision for the family (father), one man made decision for their community (gardan goloft-e mahaleh),  and one man make decision for the country (shah). 

There is no differences between these so called
"Democratic countries" that I mentioned. In some cases such as Bulgeria we had more information than those behind Iron curtain such as Turkmanstan back in 70's. All were living in misery. Bottom line is NO comparison between Iran under shah with those screwed up countries. No comparison my friend. Ask anyone who lived in Iran during shah days they will tell you the same thing.

BTW, I think I mispell Duetch. Dutch is the Netherland (holland) and Duetch is German. So it is Duetch Democratic Republic.

My undergraduate degree is Sociology. I think Dr. Massod, mash Ghasem,commis field studies are complelety different than social sciences. The reason is their immature and wrong comments they were making on this site. That tells me they had no knowlege of basic alpha bets of Social Scienses. My suggestion is to take some college courses in that field help them a lot.

Ah, so...

... Iran would have turned into another Turkmenistan now, eh? Not Bulgaria?

Siavash make up your mind... I can't even believe how many democratic countries you know! So that's so far Bulgaria, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and... Dutch Democratic Republic?? I mean, I had no idea so far that "DDR" meant "Dutch Democratic Republic"! Hah!

And so, since a lot of people were illiterate, they didn't have a right to democracy? Meaning, "what do these dehatis know anyway, why should they vote for anything?" -- Right? Is that the premise? Enlighten me on that, please.

Shah and his legacy

"Obviously, he didn't educate the people you mention politically " Parham

The illetracy rate dropped from 85% back in 50's to 45% by late 70's. That came from Sepah-e-danesh going to remote area of country to educate people. Political education is result of being able to read and write. Yes, we are developing country. No comparison between Iran and modern countries such as Swiss which celeberated 400 years of their university during 70's. Until 1935, Reza Shah the great, established Tehran university the highest level of education in Iran was high school diploma.  
Even though shah and his administration deligently fighted with illeteracry ,  45% of our population were not able to read and write their names back in 70's. Forget college education. 45% means, half of Iran's population couldn't read or write. That number is very competitive with other developing countries such as Syria. The most important aspect of "white revolution" was demolishing relatinship between "Feudal and peasants". In that, any virgin girl should sleep with feudal first night of her marriage. First principle of white revolution banned that practice. Rashed, the clergy, man was talking about that practice all the time in state radio back in 60's.

"having a communist party in a country is part of the democratic nature of the rule in that country" Parham

Democratic Republic of Turkmanistan, Democratic Rep. of Azarbaijan, Dem. Rep. of Tajikistan, Democ. Rep. of ..... and finally Dutch Democratic Rep. DDR in East Germany. Those were Democratic countries in those days back by USSR. Majority of them surronding Iran. Do you see any democracy in those countries. U.S and Brits didn't cheat on those countries and left them to be what you call them democratic. STASI secret police of East Germany knew which men are impotent in their sexual relationship with their wives by listening to their conversation in their bed room by putting wires inside the wallls. Of course that is a joke but nasty, corrupted secret police were putting wire inside people's houses and listening to their conversation.  Now, if any of these coutries who were controlled by K.G.B were really democratic I would have considered your view strongly,but unfortunately, thery were not. If TROTSKY with his idea of "social democracy" had some sympathizers inside Iran and advocating social democracy such as what you are saying I would have consider those type of establishment if shah wouldn't return. Your claim is just as someone says: if shah wouldn't return in 1953, Islamic Republic would have been established. Do you see how far is this statement from reality ?  The person can rationalize his statement by saying Ayatollah Kashani played a major role. That would have brought Islamic state back then if shah wouldn't return.  This claim is exactly the same as talking about democratic country if shah wouldn't return.  Just look at those countries surronding Iran, Turkamanistan, Taj..... NO comparison between Iran while shah was on power with those poor,deprived countries. How can you compare Iran under smart leadership of shah and our progress in those days with those deprived countries back by Soviet Union? That is reality, not my fantasy. Shah's smart decision in favor of free world during his 3 days staying in Rome and his quick reaction to U.S proposal saved Iran from a grave disaster. That disaster would have been beyond imagination. I can see that disaster by just looking at those countries surronding Iran in those days.... Kazakhestan, Turkmanstan......The same disaster we experieced during last 32 years but with different lable. In 1953  "Democratic Repulic" was a lable. In 1979, "Islamic  Rep." was a lable. Both had been putting Iran in such a mess we are experiencing these days. Both had been against "Free world" and "free nature of human beings". Both had been against idea of westerners and the way they run their countries. The idea that created countries on which everybody wants to immigrate. The countries everybody wants to live there these days. That includes  Mash Ghasem.

Shah played a major role in global democracy in the region by supporting "free world" and "free enterprises".  His legacy of "Nationalism in the Shahanshahi army" saved Iran from the hands of bedraggled arabs during 8 year war with Iraq. His great contibution to Iran's history will never be forgotten.

Excuses, excuses...

... to cover-up for the pooh-pooh that Mr. Pahlavi brought to his country in 1953... Obviously, he didn't educate the people you mention politically for them to create such a revolution later, did he?

It seems to me you're the one who's fantasizing about a supposed communist state. Keep in mind, the Brits and the Americans had to cheat to break Mossadegh's stance. At least we had a semi-decent constitution then...

Believe me, having a communist party in a country is part of the democratic nature of the rule in that country, not the other way around.

And democracy is NOT only when people elect the majles directly...

Parham Aziz, I support my claim with historical documents

"you can theoretically say the country would have turned communist and I can't, theoretically " parham

The reason is I have provided you with official document, not only by my own words. Here is what we read from Dr. Maziar Behrooz :

the coup signaled the beginning of a major rout of Iran's communist movement, probably the largest in the Middle East. The Tudeh Party of Iran (Iran's version of pro-Soviet communist party) was a clear loser as a result of the coup.

Yes, that is true. Beside Dr.Fatemi, no one of J.M was hurt. Tudeh were the one who really hurt. What does that tell you? What direction Iran was headed?  If J.M was real weight,why no one got hurt? The prominent figure in J.M got only 3 years house arrest, but colonel Mobashi was the one who got executed. So what direction was heading ? toward democracy as your fantaszing or toward USSR and Natasha? Here is another proof. The same source.

According to Kianuri's estimates, had the party chosen to take action during or immediately after the coup, the Military Organization had some six thousand party and Youth Organization members at its deposal in Tihran alone. During 1952-1953 the Military Organization, through its intelligence network in the armed forces, helped to uncover plots against the nationalist government. The Organization was well aware of the coup plot and had given the party leaders a warning to this effect which was subsequently passed on to Musaddiq.  

Yes, the information for the first attempt was given to mosaddiq through Maryam Firooz. Maryam Firroz was Kianori's wife who happened to be Mosaddeq's relative.  The daughter of Farmanfarmayan. Water( fountain) of Farmanfarmayan went after their names. 

Dear Parham, please don't deceive yourself. Any unbias person who read above paragraph can figure out what was going on and what direction we were heading to.

Now, democracy don't appear out of blue. There are some pre-requisite to reach that point. That is long story that I don't want to get in here. Just think of this: I want to choice Parham as my congress man. How can I do it if I can't even write down Parham's name? Someone else should do it for me. Is that your answer Parham? if someone else do it, it is automatically divert from democracy. How can you make an omelete without breaking the egg first? or how can you watch a movie without buying a ticket first ? The same for democracy. How can you establish democracy without educating people first.

Hope you get my point. Illetracy rate was 85% back in 50's. With shah and his administration deligent efforts by sending troops of education (Sepahe-e-Danish) to villiages,it dropped to 45% by late 70's. That means half of our population couldn't even read or write their names. Forget college education, Just their names. Those people are the ones who saw Khomainie's picture on the surface of the moon and created revolution in 1979.  In a country that it's people were throwing stones on the houses of Bahaiis, speaking of democracy in a sense of westerners thinking is something way far from reality. The second factor "mass believe system" is as important as education in developing demoacracy. Socialism never succeed in Protestant society because protestant believe system is to work hard and spend less. That automatically accumolate wealth (capital) and create Capitalism, therefore, people's believe system background prevent protestant from socialism. That was just an example. Now think of Islamic shia as our "mass believe system" and go from there. The religion that see everything black and white and has no tolerance for opposit idea. Just think how realistically democracy could be implemented in such a society. It doesn't matter what government is in power.

Our democracy...

... was based on the 1906 constitution, that Mr. Pahlavi walked all over. It had been made by Iranians for Iranians. It's not because there was a high rate of illiteracy that one should have walked all over their rights.

Re communism vs. oil -- Well if they did that for fear of communism and not for oil, then it should show what a stupid argument "we" (the traitors who did, really) gave away our country for, shouldn't it??

I mean, how come you can theoretically say the country would have turned communist and I can't, theoretically (though with a lot more support for my argument), say we would have been better off and had a democracy and avoided the revolution too, most likely, hmmm? Do you have a monopoly on hypotheses?

Siavash, I know you want to have the last word here, and I'm thinking why don't I just give it to him! I mean if that's how you think you've proven anything, so be it... Huh? What da ya say? : )

Parham, Oil, and democarcy

 "the main objective was the get hold of the oil (for the Americans/Brits " Parham 

Below is from

Mark J. Gasiorowski
Department of Political Science
Louisiana State University

who did indepth research in this subject matter.  

"What motives led U.S. policy makers to overthrow Mosaddeq? It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production.(68) On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favorable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers' law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40 Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British.

While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having "lost China." Once in power, the new administration quickly sought to put its views into practice: the State Department was purged of homosexuals and suspected communists, steps were taken to strengthen the Western alliance, and initiatives were begun to bolster the Western position in Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia. Viewed in this context, and coming as it did only two weeks after Eisenhower's inauguration, the decision to overthrow Mosaddeq appears merely as one more step in the global effort of the Eisenhower administration to block Soviet expansionism. (69)

Moreover, the major U.S. oil companies were not interested in Iran at this time. A glut existed in the world oil market. The U.S. majors had increased their production in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1951 in order to make up for the loss of Iranian production; operating in Iran would force them to cut back production in these countries which would create tensions with Saudi and Kuwaiti leaders. Furthermore, if nationalist sentiments remained high in Iran, production there would be risky. U.S. oil companies had shown no interest in Iran in 1951 and 1952. By late 1952, the Truman administration had come to believe that participation by U.S. companies in the production of Iranian oil was essential to maintain stability in Iran and keep Iran out of Soviet hands. In order to gain the participation of the major U.S. oil companies, Truman offered to scale back a large anti-trust case then being brought against them. The Eisenhower administration shared Truman's views on the participation of U.S. companies in Iran and also agreed to scale back the anti-trust case. Thus, not only did U.S. majors not want to participate in Iran at this time, it took a major effort by U.S. policymakers to persuade them to become involved. (70)

The Eisenhower administration therefore seems to have been motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran rather than by a desire to promote U.S. commercial interest. It should be noted that most middle level State Department and CIA officials did not believe that a coup was necessary to avert a communist takeover. Neither Henry Byroade, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for the Middle East, not Ambassador Henderson favored a coup in early 1953. As discussed above, Iran specialists in the CIA analysts did not regard Mosaddeq as a communist and the Tudeh was not believed to be capable of seizing power at this time. Rather, the Tudeh was thought to be pursuing a "popular front" strategy by infiltrating the army and the government bureaucracy and trying to gain favor with Mosaddeq and other National Front leaders. CIA analysts had concluded in November 1952 that a Tudeh takeover was not likely before the end of 1953. Moreover, the Iranian economy had become relatively stable by this time, so a general collapse was not viewed as imminent. The fears of a communist takeover that prompted the coup therefore seem to have originated at the highest levels of the CIA and the State Department, and were not shared by lower-level Iran specialist. (71)

 "there is no "western style" democracy" Parham

There is prerequisite for democracy and it is education. How can I vote to Parham as president when I can't even write his name? That is what westerners call it democracy which is way from Iran in 50's

No,...

... that wasn't the main objective, the main objective was the get hold of the oil (for the Americans/Brits -- as usual), and to get hold of the power (for the Shah). You believe anything besides that, you are probably very naive.

More, there is no "western style" democracy. There is democracy, and that's it. We saw what keeping the people in the dark led into now, didn't we? We should have started getting them out of it in 1953, then.

Parham's possible misjudgement

"... would be that there would be democracy in Iran, together with a communist party just like in civilized countrie" Parham

With 85% illetracy rate back in 50's, that would be highly unlikely. I see your point, but I am not sure that would have been happened.  Forget college education, 85% of our people couldn't read or write their names.So talking about democracy in a western style is just an illusion.

"Iran's oil would have been hers and there wouldn't have been a dictator and his secret police torturing and killing people" Parham

I am not sure about this also because the main objective was to prevent Iran fall into the hand of USSR. To answer your concern I quate from Danial Goldsmith research as follow: 

"The question of why the American government was willing to risk its international reputation in order to overthrown the Iranian government is a difficult one. It is tempting to explain US actions in purely economic terms. After all, the American companies owned a 40% share in the international oil consortium.52 Although this interpretation cannot be entirely dismissed, the more accurate interpretation is that the US genuinely feared the impact that Communism would have were it to take root in Iran and mistook Mossadegh’s nationalism for Communism. " Danial Goldsmith

Remember comrade Khushchev message to the proletaria of the world. "Time is a time of socialism. Imperialism is under our control. (1st principle of revisionism in 1956). Most likely "Natasha" would have the outcome.  We are talking about UN-written essay. This is Just my hypothesis.

What would have happened...

... would be that there would be democracy in Iran, together with a communist party just like in civilized countries at the time and unlike the US where they boast a democracy and go on a communist witch-hunt. Further, Iran's oil would have been hers and there wouldn't have been a dictator and his secret police torturing and killing people. What's even more important is that there probably wouldn't have been a revolution that destroyed people's lives and is still doing so. That's what would have happened.

Not at all Parham, here is another document

Dear Parham,

Just remember we are talkiing about UNwritten essay. Mosadegh is UNwritten essay. We don't know what exactly would have been happened back then if shah would have never returned. But we can see what direction that Iran would have been headed. by reviewing historical documents. Thanks God shah came back.

Mark Gasiorowski did a lots of research in this filed. He also had access to all presidential file and record. His work is conclusive and unstanding. Mark Gasiorowski reached to the same point that I mentioned in my previous comment that people were cutting from National front and joing Tudeh party. That was also suggested in Tudeh party official publications which was consistant with Churchil analyse of the situation. I mentioned several times as "rapid influence of soviet union in Iran via Tudeh party after oil was being nationalized. (Feb. 1952).   

according to Mark Gasiorowski, by 1953, the U.S. government already saw a ‗communist takeover‘ as imminent 6

We're not running out of things to say...

.. are we, Siavash?

And?

...

oh, ... yah? Dom-e- Khoros and Parham.

" Mossadegh would have had a margin on the Natashas" parham

"if the US stood idly by and let Iran fall into the hands of the Soviet Union."53 The Eisenhower administration was mildly sympathetic to nationalism, provided that it was truly independent, but in the heat of the early Cold War, Eisenhower had little faith that nationalism could be non-Communist.54 Likewise, John Foster Dulles feared that Moscow would manipulate true nationalism for its own purposes. Dulles stated that, "the forces of [nationalist] unrest are captured by the Soviet Communists, because they are smart at that."55 Because of this fear, Eisenhower’s administration acted hastily and with little foresight, showing supreme indifference to the welfare of the Iranian people.

Written by :

Daniel Goldsmith

Oh, so...

... he stood for his auntie Taj-Ol-Molook when he was doing all he was doing?

Oil

The mistake Dr Mossadegh made was to get too tied up in oil. The real treasure of Iran is its people and its territory. I would have gladly traded oil for democracy. We ended up losing both but at least kept the territory.

Now there are forces threatening that one as well. We better get our act together. Through our lobbies and voting power. Oppose those who threaten Iranian national integrity. F*** the oil; worry about democracy and the people.