Pictory

To : Mammad

 Thank you Mammad for your response.

I understand from your first paragraph that you do indeed have biases against Pahlavis, but the important part is that we both share contempt for IRI.

Just so that I can clarify my position and my disagreement with some of your statements, I will continue responding to your points;

About your first point, 1953 coup and the illegitimacy;

You refer to this event as a foreign sponsored event and therefore, illegitimate. There would have been legitimacy if it was sponsored internally. So I understand that if the Shah had spent $6 million of his own money to let Zahedi and other Iranians do the same thing, it would have been all legitimate ? but, since the $6 million was US tax payer money, this was unacceptable ? Fine! A small matter for argument. But the coup opened doors to the west with positive economic development and rising prestige for Iran. Fortunately, it was bloodless and no one was hurt (if you make exception for a few military officers belonging to Tudeh party), unlike most coup d'etats. And the net effect on the average person in Iran would be no different if the coup d'état money came from, "Iranian", or "American" sources. The net effect was the same; accelerated economic development. Americans spent a lot of money in Iran after 1953 and before the oil revenue started to come in, under "Komak-hayeh Eghtesadi Amrica". Truman's 4th point and various other programs for economic development, were they illegitimate too ?

Americans believed the key to a stable and secure region for easy flow of oil to the west was economic development of Iran and they provided money, resources and access to Iran in order to achieve this. At the time, there were similar developments in political and economic affairs of Europe, Japan and Korea by US. Were these governments all illegitimate ? Look where they are now.

Regarding your second point: I understand you refer to IRI as the zero and therefore normalizing any regime against IRI will produce an ideal regime. I agree.

I disagree with IRI being the legitimate child of Pahlavi. However, I emphatically agree that the so called revolution had, as you said: "political/economical/social background ("zamineh.")". This background, or "Zamineh" is the reactionary, regressive and barbaric Shia-Islam that resided deep in the vast impoverished portion of the society, "Gheshrioon". This was the legitimate child of the Safavids from 16th century and not the Pahlavis. This child of Shah Esmaiil-e Safavi has been with Iran through Afshar, Zand and Qajar periods. Even in "Enghelab-eh Mashrooteh" they left their prints everywhere in the 1906 constitution. They were, temporarily, suppressed by the first Pahlavi king, but eventually, along with extremist left, it overwhelmed the second Pahlavi.

Your third point: Fascism.

Sorry, you are using the term quite liberally. I would have to find the Rastakhiz bylaws for more proof. A necessary component of any political party is the mass movement. This was not realized in their short life. Their members were people with diverse backgrounds from pro-monarchy Iran-e Novin, Mardom to remnants or ex-National Front and ex-Tudeh opposition, members of the parliament and ordinary men and women. These people were not fascist, even if the allegiance to the King and the country may remotely sound like fascism. Again, the alternatives were the gun touting leftist guerillas, or the murderous Islamists.

The 4th point: South Africa and Vietnam

Shah was selling oil to South Africa because there was something in it for Iran. If memory serves me right, Iran owned and may still own oil related and oil storage facilities in South Africa that were negotiated under the Shah as contingency plan in the event of a national crisis. This may not be all that important, but the point I like to make is Apartheid South Africa in those days was somewhat similar to IRI today. A regime under multiple sanctions and without many friends. They did not have much leverage in negotiating with petroleum producing countries (and other things for that matter) and Iran was there to take advantage of a "good deal". Just like today's IRI that has to give up majority ownership on most development projects, that is if they are lucky to find a partner from a 2nd or 3rd rate industrial countries.

South Vietnam was no more corrupt than other moderate regimes in their region. They don’t even compare to the atrocities and human rights violation of the Viet Kong during and after the war. Should I mention Pol Pot, their neighbor to the west ? Why do you always pick on the least criminal regimes ?

The 5th point: early peaceful opposition to the Shah.

The political scene in Iran was quite peaceful up to the 1953 coup and after, much credit goes to the civility of all factions involved in the politics. Even during the coup, Mossadegh (also minister of defense) had the authority (and the legal right) to detain Sepahbod Nasiri when Nasiri showed up at his house, on the morning of 25th of Mordad, 1332, to inform him that he is no longer the prime minister. Mossadegh conceded in favor of the Shah. He thought it was not worth the possible bloodshed.

Things were generally peaceful until Khomeini's incitement to bloody riots in 1963. Credit to Islamic barbarians for living up to their stereotype in a short notice. The gun touting left picked it up from there and the rest was history.

Shah employed the expertise and skills of many of his opponents from Tudeh and National Front in future governments at ministerial and advisory levels. Many educated and skilled dissidents were employed by the government, or had successful careers. The advocates of the violence and violent overthrowing of the government were youthful fanatic extremists, criminals.

The 6th point: Multiparty problem in those days.

In those days, letting out Tudeh (the third largest communist party in the world before 1953 in terms of memberships) into national politics, along with other parties, would have delivered Iran right to the Soviet camp. Mr. Kianoori would have proudly done so. Once you were behind the iron curtain, you were gone forever. We just could not afford that.

Today is the opposite. There is no big hegemonic neighbor like USSR. US is there (aside from fighting Islamist fanatics) because of the Islamic republic and its aspiration to establish a Shia caliphate, or a Shia empire from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. There never was such a thing in the past and there is no precedence for it. Taking Islam to Arabic people by Iranians is preposterous, just ask them. Eight years of war with Shia Iraq only increased the Arab-Iranian animosity and induced an anti-arabo-Islamic nationalistic fervor in Iran. But, IRI still promotes hatred of the US and the west by stirring up Islamists across the region and squanders Iranian resources and money to finance these activities.

The doors to the west and the US must be opened for the benefit of the public, trade and economic development. IRI is following the failed Soviet model of closed door and anti western attitudes, every communist state has learned that lesson and opened up to the world economy, except the chronically backward IRI. Multiparty and democratic political system has to take place in Iran, or IRI will meet a bloody end, sooner or later, one way or another.

Last, the 8th point:

Let me repeat again, your China example clearly shows that the economic success without political freedom can coexist without causing a revolution. This coexistence is tenuous, but possible, as the Chinese (and other Asian countries like Singapore) experience have demonstrated so far. However, everyone agrees that the economic development will eventually overwhelm the political repression, as people become more educated and affluent, democracy will take hold. Iran was on this path in the '70s, it still is, but had a major setback and lost a lot of time and now has some serious obstacles. There is nothing absurd or disingenuous about it.

There was nothing wrong with Tajgozaari, or Jashnhaa-ye 2500 Saaleh. These were great publicity events that introduced Iran to the world as a civilized and pleasant place to live, work and invest. The follow-ups were the multi-billion dollar deals to built industrial complexes. Corporate America does it too, to showcase products, publicity and bring in more business.

Do not insult mulla's intelligence

Mullas and leftists did not rise to power because shah suppressed them. No matter how shah had managed these two groups, their leaders sought complete access to iranian power and wealth. No mulla would compromise on that no matter what shah did or did not do -- as we saw what khomeini did once he could.

The rest who supported the leaders of these groups were gullible people who were deceived with exaggerations and emotional lies and deceit. It had nothing to do with shah's behavior, except that shah did not allow publishing of any anti mulla material so people were unaware of the nature of mullas as well as polical islam and its past atrocities in iranian history.

Objectivity based on achievment.

I was not jealous of shah. I did not want to have his power and access to national wealth. I was not deceived by absolute idealistic words like democracy, dictatorship, elections, illegitimate, coup, etc. I ONLY view Pahlavis by their deeds: what they DID for iran, GIVEN how difficult it was to deal with backward people of iran when they took over, GIVEN how easily those people were lied to, deceived, and tricked to pour into the streets and VOTE for the devil that subsequently killed tens of thousands of our country's men and women, oppressed the whole nation, robbed the wealth of the country and sold people promise of virgins in the heaven, made so many external enemies for the nation, and achieved close to nothing in return for the country in the past 29 years.

May god bless Pahlavis, that despite all their short-comings, all accusations against them, and all back-stabbings by close and not so close, brought unprecedented and measurable change and progress to iran. ALL that we have today in iran, literacy, industries, organizations, ... were raised from essentially nothing in 1299 to what was one of the best in the middle east in 1357. Too bad, people of iran were so easily fooled by a master deceiver and lier. If someone does not see the contributions of Pahlavis, either he/she is really not familiar with iran that Pahlavis inherited and then passed on to IRI, or simply does not like shah because did not like shah.

Too bad shah let serpents like khomeini, rafsanjani, ... get away to deceive and destroy iran in just 29 years.

Kaveh: Thank you, but I disagree

Dear Kaveh:

first of all, anybody who is political, or follows politics, has, by definition, some bias. One cannot be political, but impartial. So, although my statements were based on historical events that are almost universally acknowledged, I freely admit that I may be biased.

Regarding your points:

1. I say the Shah's regime AFTER 1953 was illegitimate, because it came to power as the result of a FOREIGN -SPONSORED, CIA-MIA6 coup. It was not an internal coup which, sometimes, can lead to a better government. Example: the 1975 coup in Portugal by Portugal's leftist navy officers that overthrew the 40-years old dictatorship of Antonio Salazar/Caetano. Today, Portugal is a prospering democracy. Except for Iranian monarchists, the rest of the world sees the 1953 events as a foreign-sponsored coup.

2. My doctoral thesis advisor used to tell me: Mammad never normalize (divide) by ZERO, because regardless of how small the number you are normalizing, the result is INFINITY.

The question is not comparing the Shah's regime with the IRI. The IRI, or its reactionary, velayat-e faghih wing, is already established as the worst religious political establishment. There is no argument about it. We are talking about the Shah's regime which, in the name of progress and secularism, provided a fertile ground for the rise of the religious dictatorship. I always say: "the IRI is the ligitimate (mashroo') child of the Pahlavi regime." That is why it was of the worst kind. What we inherited from the Shah's regime is Velaayat-e Faghih.

It is utterly naive to think that the Iranian revolution did not have political/economical/social background ("zamineh.") It is utterly naive to believe that just some Islamic-Marxists wanted to topple the regime, and succeeded by tricking an old nation with a glorious past and rich culture. Unless we understand why the Revolution occured, we will never learn from those mistakes. We cannot rewrite the history, simply because we do not like it.

3. Fascism has a classical, well-accepted meaning (just Google it to find it; do not take it from me): It is a political system in which all organs of the political system follow blindly and without question the orders and leadership of the dictator at the top. It is defined by the absolute obdience to the top, who is a single person. Fascism, unlike Nazism, is not necessarily racist, although it can lead to it. It has to do with the political apparatus and the way it operates under the dictator.

4. The Shah was selling oil to South Africa, but he did not have to, because there were plenty of customers for Iran's oil. Iran was not a worldwide power to influence the apartheid regime by having commercial relationship with it, nor was the amount of trade significant to have any impact. The relationship was political, which is why it was so bad. The apartheid regime outlasted the Shah's long after he was gone, meaning he had no impact. The Shah helped the US in Vietnam, a totally criminal war. Need I say more?

5. It does not matter whether the opposition to the Shah in the early 1960s was a legacy of Dr. Mossaddegh. Peaceful is peaceful. As I said, the opposition did not even want to overthrow the Shah. True, part of Ayatollah Khomeini's opposition to the Shah was due to the land reform (which was not a true land reform), but it also had to do with the Capitulation agreement with the US. But, these are besides my point, which is that Ayatollah Khomeini did not want to overthrow the Shah in the 1960s. Ayatollah Khomeini was not a junior cleric at that time, although not as senior as Ayatollahs Shariatmadari, Golpaygani, Marashi, etc.

6. If I were to accept your argument, I would reach the conclusion that multiparty political system is not appropriate for today's Iran, due to the totally unstable, volatile, militarized (by the US ans Israel), bloody Middle East; due to the fact that Iran borders some of the most unstable countries; due to the fact that US forces surround Iran on three sides. How come you still want democracy for today's Iran under such horrible conditions, and do not think multiparty system is inappropriate?

7. I agree with some of your points. The rest requires a long discussion, not appropriate for a limited space.

8. I am amazed about your last comment. Without meaning any disrespect, this is the first time I read that someone makes the absurd statement that economic development does not require democracy, or that prosperity does not lead to democratic aspirations and demands. If there is no democracy, then how can corruption be prevented? How about nepotism by the ruling group? How about wasteful, boastful projects, like some of those by the Shah or Rafsanjani? How about Tajgozaari, or Jashnhaa-ye 2500 Saaleh?

Thank you for a civilized discussion.

To: Mammad

you provided some facts about that period and, at the same time, there are spins and biases relating to these events;

"Fact: The Shah's regime was illegitimate…."

If you define legitimacy as a democratically elected regime, then yes Shah's regime was illegitimate. But then, when was the last time there was a legitimate regime, or dynasty, ruling Iran, or most of the rest of the world ? By choosing an absolute standard to compare against, every regime will fail the legitimacy test. The relative comparison has always been the rule in comparing one regime relative to another; as Pahlavis relative to Islamic republic. There are, of course, some bench marks that we use in these comparisons i.e.: economics factors and human rights. When I use any of these categories to compare the two regimes, IRI is at the bottom, by far. Not only that, I can clearly see IRI's national/international policies and internal ideologies to be the obstacles that contribute to this abysmal performance.

Just as an example, IRI's genocide of not only their opponents, but suspected supporters of the opposition is far a more profound case for their illegitimacy than the benevolent and forgiving repression the Shah.

"Fact: The illegitimate regime of the Shah was a dictatorship of the worst kind. Political "parties" such as Iran-e Novin, Mardom, etc., were just ridiculous shows to give the impression that Iran was a multiparty nation."

To claim Shah's dictatorship as the "worst kind" in view of the barbaric Islamist republic today is irresponsible, to say the least. This is quiet a biased statement and, more importantly, it is false.

"Fact: On Esfand 12, 1353 (March 3, 1975), the Shah declared establishment of the truly fascist party, Rastakhiz, and disbanded all other "parties." He could not even tolerate the so-called political parties of Iran-e Novin, Mardom, etc."

"Truly fascist party, Rastakhiz" in 1975 ?? Another prejudiced statement. Did they hate anyone ? No, Did anyone care if you were not registered in that party ? No. The truly fascist parties were those of Islamo-Marxist fanatics advocating armed struggle. Their role models were Stalin, Mao, Mohammad, Hossein, Ali and numerous other bloody tyrants in history. Rastakhiz had a youth branch that was trying, in vain, to lure away the young from the deadly traps of Islamo-Marxsist terror. In their short and insignificant life they were advocates of anti corruption and profiteering in Bazzari merchant class. Far from fascism!

Also, Iran-e Novin was led by Amir Abbas Hoveida and the Mardom was established by Alam, both were very close to Shah. These parties merged into Rastakhiz without any quarrel, as they were both government inspired parties. This was NOT democratic, but was not unbearably repressive either, especially during a period of rapid growth in job opportunities, salaries, health care and increased standard of living for the majority (creation of the middle class).

"Fact: The Shah's regime was allied with some of the worst regimes on the face of earth. From the racist apartheid regime of South Africa, to South Vietnam, to all other dictorships around the world that were supported by the US."

Another misguided statement. Iran's national interest was always first in all of these relations. If some of these countries had weaknesses, Iran was there to exploit and leverage a good deal; such as oil related deals with Apartheid South Africa without necessarily contributing to the Apartheid injustice. Arguably, if there was any concern about the internal affairs of the partner countries, you have a great deal of leverage when you have a trade relation with them. Just look at IRI today.

"Fact: The opposition to the Shah's regime in the 1960s never wanted to overthrow him, but wanted him to only be a figurehead, as the Constitution had demanded. Even Ayatollah Khomeini who led the 1963 uprising did not want to overthrow him. He repeatedly said at that time (this is well-documented) that, "maa mikhaahim tow saltanat konid, na hokoumat."

The peaceful opposition and Khomeini quote is the Mossadegh's legacy. Khomeini was a junior cleric who may have been parroting Mossadegh's stance. In 1963, Khomeini's uprising had more to do with "Eslahat-e Arzi" of the White Revolution, once he realized he got into trouble and his life was in danger, he was granted the title Ayatollah by other ayatollahs, in order to save him from possible death at the hands of the regime. The 1906 Shia-infested constitution did not allow the execution of "marja-e tagleed" ayatollahs.

"Fact: The opposition was also opposing the Shah peacefully. But the Shah jailed them all by 1965. As Mahdi Bazargan, leader of Freedom Movement, said in his military trial show at that time, "we are the last group that is talking to you peacefully. Next time the opposition to you will be violent." How true was that prophecy."

At the time Bazargan was considered a reactionary component of the National Front, hard to believe today. The statement was not extraordinary by itself. Again, there were many international Marxist and Islamist movements at the time that were advocating armed struggle and were becoming role models for Iran based opposition.

Also, there were reasons for Shah's intransigence for allowing these groups in the open. This, again, has to do with the world history and events of the time. 1960s and 70s were the height of Soviet power and a bipolar world. Iran's geopolitical situation was not favorable for a multi party democracy system, unfortunately. Sharing two thousand kilometers of border with Soviet Union, being a major oil producer and the dominant nation of the oil producing Persian Gulf region was too sensitive to be neutral, or even free of big brother alliance, in the bipolar world. Shah made the right choice and we all prospered!

"Fact: Mojahedin and Fadaaeen both grew out of the frustration of the opposition to the Shah, after he banned the National Front, the Freedom Movement, and all other political groups. They saw armed struggle as the only way to break the back of the absolute repression of the Sha's regime (whether that was the correct course of action is a different matter)."

Not entirely. There certainly was frustration with very limited opposition, but the worldwide radicalism in those days played a major role. The regime paved the way for easy access to Europe and America's best learning institutions and sent thousands in pursuit of higher education and most fell into the wave of anti-establishment and left extremism sweeping most societies with role models advocating armed struggle to topple governments.

Most of these groups were inspired by Marxist insurgencies everywhere, but specifically, it was the Lebanese civil war that provided them with paramilitary training and then opened the door for Shia Islamists in Iran. The Shia revolution in '79 had roots in Lebanese civil war and the South Lebanese Shia. The Marxist-Leninists like CFK and Islamo-Marxists like MKO were the first to participate in Lebanese civil war an allying themselves with equivalent factions in Lebanon. Later when the Islamists precipitated from left leaning groups, they opened the door for other mullahs from Qom to become radicalized in Lebanon. Musa Sadr, an Islamist himself, was the link between the Lebanese Islamists and those in Qom and Khomeini in Iraq. This is all documented by Robert Fisk in "Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon". All IRI bosses were regular visitors to Tyre, Lebanon before 1979.

Lebanon had more to do with events in Iran, in 1970s, than any other insurgency in the world. Iran was fertile ground for pan Shia Islamists because of the Shia majority with well established Shia clergy centers of Qom, and else where, and with ethnic and religious ties to South Lebanon. The radical Shia Islamists would have been a potent opponent for any democratic institution, had the Shah not banned "secular democratic opposition". In fact, Shah's regime, to some extend, was pandering to the clergy trying to bring them closer to the regime, in vain.

" One thing that most of the commentators do not realize is this: Even if all the claims about the economic success of the Shah's regime are true, they would only go to show why the Revolution had to happen. Why? Because in any country in which there is economic success but no freedom, people demand political freedom. China is a good example. If the freedom does not come with economic success, a revolution will."

Totally disagree, the revolution did not have to happen and was not legitimate. The China example clearly shows that the economic success without political freedom can coexist without causing a revolution. In a booming economy there is less demand for political diversity, there is no need for it. It is the abysmal economic conditions that forces political diversity in search of economic solutions, not the other way around.

The increasing gap between the rich and the poor in the last few years of the Pahlavis was not so severe. In today's IRI is a lot worse, so were is the revolution ? All the Asian tiger economies have gone through this process and managed it without the mess created by Iran. This could have been managed much better, but the reactionary Islamists opposition had no clue and no knowledge of anything, including the Marxist-Leninists. They all wanted armed struggle against the regime to create Marxist-Leninist police state or an Islamic utopia (what a contradiction!). The few voices of moderation in the National Front was not only ignored, but were suppressed by the revolutionaries. The revolutionary opposition shares the brunt of the responsibility for lack of knowledge and discipline, having no clue about what they were doing, or their complete lack of situational awareness. There is no legitimacy in that.

There is also something to be said about the few who got killed under the Shah and the many under IRI. Before '79, those killed by SAVAK and anti-terror forces were the hardcore leaders of these groups, or were paramilitaries hiding in team-houses ready to commit acts of terror (bombings and robbing banks to finance terror). They knew they would die and decided so.

After '79, there was wholesale murder of ordinary high school and college kids suspect of sympathy with anything unIslamic. Most of these kids did not know the danger, as most people could not imagine, and remain shocked, at the depth of barbarity of the Islamists. These were the un-volunteered victims of the Islamists wholesale murder.

Re: Mammad # 2

Regarding your criticsm of my statistics:

Yes, IRI was in chaos during its first 10 years. But so was the first pahlavi king for many years before he consolidated all the power onto himself. The seond pahlavi king did not have much control until 1953, and Iran was in a domestic chaos for many years preceeding 1953. Either way both IRI and pahlavis had their share of chaos.

Also the damages due to war is irrelevant in this comparison. Because one could speak about the damages caused by the ghajars during their 150 years of reign. Either way, Iran in the 1920s when Reza I began his reign was still far far behind Iran of 1988 right after the war despite of all the damages inflicted on its economy.

You seem to be digging under any stone to find a reason to invalidate the pahlavis, as I once did in the past. You are only denying your own self the truth.

However, even more importantly, the oil revenue under the pahlavis was dramatically less than under the IRI. Iran's oil revenue in the 20 years from 1953 to 1973 when Iran had made its most progress under the pahlavis was less than 15 billion dollars. In contrast IRI's oil revenue in the 20 years from 1989 to 2009 (assuming the oil price is locked at 2007 average prices for 08 and 09) when it has been making its most progress is more than 500 billion dollars.

That's 33 times more revenue. And yet Iran's growth rate indeces are much larger under the pahlavis than under the IRI. The IRI's average population was only 3 times more than under the pahlavis in the above mentioned periods.

One more point: Had the Pahlavis remained in power, all the "brains" who have left Iran would have stayed in Iran. The "fantastic" progresses you claim under the IRI would have been even more fantastic. There is no arguments that more Iranians would have been alive today as well.

Re: Mammad

Regarding the ilegitimacy of the shah's rule after 1953, we need to define "ilegitimacy" in the context of idealism and realism.

As an idealist, ANY government which would eventually take control in 1953, be it shah, mosadegh or any one else, could always be considered "ilegitimate" by its opposition. That is because Iran was a weak country and foreigners had a history of almost two hundred years of influence and meddling in Iran. Shah sided with USA, Mosadegh with the Tudeh party which was nothing more than the Soviets influence. We also had the mullahs who were influenced by the British. Then we had the masses. They were uneducated, unaware and therefore powerless.

Let's say Mosadegh would somehow remain in power. He already gave a lot of concessions to the tudeh party in order to gain its support. Do not forget that Tudeh had a lot of power back in those days. In a wishful thinking mind, Mosadegh would become the hero who would "save" Iran. However, realistically, he would ultimately either fall into the hands of tudeh, or would have no choice but to resort to authotarian methods in order to "save" Iran. Either way, he would be considered "ilegitimate" because he sold out to the soviets, or because he chose to be a dictator.

Let's say the Mullahs would somehow come out winner. We would say they are ilegitimate because they are "nokars" to British.

I challenge you to wear Dr. Mosadegh's shoes. Assume that your hands are tied with only two things:

1. You may NOT resort to dicatorial ways.

2. You may NOT concede to foreign influence.

Then show me a blue print with which you AND Iran could have come out a winner. Be realistic and consider the situation in Iran both domestically and internationally. Consider the power of your domestic and foreign enemies in a realistic way. If you cannot come up with that blue print then I am correct and you are wrong.

In my opinion, any govenment would ultimately be considered "ilegitimate". So then the question would become which one would protect the interest of the people the most?

I still stand by what I said. The coup was not and could not have been executed by a few American diplomats. They were not gods. They supported it, but it was planned and executed by Iranians, some of whom you named.

You agreed that mosadegh shut the majles down. Then you citicized the majles by questioning what it was up to. Then what of Mosadegh's title? I am refering to mosadegh being refered to as the first "popular" and "democratically elected" prime minister of Iran.

Mosadegh was not elected in a refrundum. The reason why we call mosadegh "democratically elected" is because he was democratically elected by the majles. The majlis in turn was democartically elelcted by the people. This is how mosadegh gained its legitimacy and the title of "popular" and "democratically elected".

If you question the majles, then I question Mosadegh's legitimacy because he was appointed by that very same majles. You can't have it both ways. Either Mosadegh was legitimate or not. If he was, he drew that legitimacy through the majles and nothing else. Then the majlis must have been legitimate. Therefore, Mosadegh had no right to shut it down.

I challenge you to resolve this issue.

Good thing they killed these bastards

Had the Marxists come to power, they would have executed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians. The Mollahs are awefull, these assholes would have been even worst.

Jamshid-e Aziz

In my response to you, I started out by saying that let's assume that everything that you said is true. But, that does not change anything. Why? Because the starting point of my original comment was: The Shah's regime was illegitimate AFTER 1332 because the Shah's rule was due to the CIA-MI6 coup. You agreed with the nature of the 1953 events as being a CIA coup. Once you agree with that, then everything else follows.

Sure, the coup had many Iranian collaborators.
In any nation there are always many traitors, in this case ranging from the Rashidian brothers, to Zahedi and his co-horts in the army, to the mob led by Sha'ban Jafari. But, that does not change the foreign nature of the coup. It was not, for example, like the 1975 coup in Portugal, where the leftist navy officers overthrew the fascist regime of Antonio Salazar/Caetano.

You say that you are not aware of any Americans or CIA agents being there. Come on! A well-informed man like you knows better. Every embassy, especially a US embassy, has many "political" officers and many military personnel. The "political" officers are mostly CIA agents under the diplomatic cover, so that they can be given diplomatic immunity. Among the military personnel there are officers who work with the DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency). The State Department itself has a Bureau of Intelligence. Same thing for the British embassy.
This is aside from many "tourists" and "business men" who were in Iran at that time, including Donald Wilbur, the "brain" behind the coup, and Kermit Roosevelt. You want to tell me that all those guys were sitting in their offices, having tea and coffee and doing nothing? It just defies logic.

It is utterly unfair to blame lack of democracy on Mosaddegh. You say that he shut down down the Majles. He did. But, have you read the history to see who were in that Majles, what they were doing, and for what purpose? The fact is, dissolving the parliament was the Prime Minister's right, up until 3 years or 4 years ealier, when the Shah changed the Constitution illegally and gave himself that right. Where was the referendum for changing that? We can argue until eternity about this. But the fact remains and you also agree with it: The 1953 events were a foreign-sponsored coup. That immediately removes any legitimacy from the Shah's regime. The rest follows.

Two factors that you did not consider in your statistics when comparing the Shah's regime and the IRI are: (1) The Pahlavis ruled 53 years, or 58 years (if we count it from 1299). The IRI has been in power 29 years. (2) In the first two years of the IRI the country was in a revolutionary chaos. Whether the revolution was legitimate (in my opinion it was) or not, it does not change the fact that the country was in chaos. Then we had an 8 year war with Iraq. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, only the 1st two years of the war were patriotic, but, agains, similar to the revolution itself, war is war whether it is legitimate or not.

The US, France, Britain, Russia and the Arabs all supported Iraq. Iraq inflicted at least $1 trillion damage on Iran. So, not only did the nation have to pass through the revolutionary chaos, but also had to pass through 8 years of destruction. So, in essence whatever the IRI has done has been in 19 years. Assume also that the $1 trillion damage was totally the IRI fault.

Given that the population also has increased by a factor of 2.5 OVER SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, and given that the IRI had to repair its own war damages first (assuming that they were its fault), and then to make the advances that even you agree with, the amount of work done is simply fantastic. I am sure that one can always find places, like in Kurdistan that you pointed out, as not receiving their fair share, but this does not errode the main argument.

I hate the IRI for inflicting so much pain, suffering and HUMAN LIVES LOSS on my own family, as well as thousands of others. But, one must be objective in order to learn from history. that is why I repeat once again: the problem with the IRI is not that it has not done anything for Iran; it has done a lot. The problem is its bloody and reactionary nature.

Re: Mamad (# 2)

You also compared the work done on the infrastructure during the pahalvis and during the IRI. I will prove your lack of knowledge and if not that then your unfairness regarding this issue. 

When the pahlavis reign began, Iran had a 1 percent overall literacy rate. This is what the pahlavis inherited from the Ghajars. When the pahlavis reign ended and the IRI's began, Iran had a 59 percent overall literacy rate. Today Iran has a 77 percent overall literacy rate. (UNESCO's numbers)

1. When the pahlavis literacy campaign began, since we had limited resources (only 1 percent literacy), it was decided that most of the resources will be used for the youth. In 1978 Iran had a 90 percent literacy rate among school age children. Those children are now adults in the IRI regime. This number has actually dropped under the IRI.

2. The increase in overall literacy rate during the pahlavis was 58 percent. This increase was accomplished with a limited resource. Remember we started with a 1 percent literacy rate when the Pahlavis reign began.

3. The increase in the same during the IRI 30 years was 19 percent. Also remember the IRI did not start with a 1 percent literacy rate, as the pahalvis did. It started with a literacy rate of 59 percent, So they started with a much larger resource and still came short.

4. The same concept can be applied to work done on infrastructure, number of universities, health, etc. In general, the higher the literacy rate and the educated population the more work can be done and the more progress can be accomplished in a developing country.

The average literacy rate during the pahlavis was about 30 percent which was a success considering the starting point.. The average during IRI was about 68 percent which is a failure considering its starting point. I am well aware that we are not dealing with an exact mathematical science here, but one could deduct that for every unit of progress during the pahlavis, three units could be expected under the IRI.

The IRI has failed miserably in this regard. You simply cannot expect the shah's regime to have accomplished what IRI can and must have accomplished by now. Even with the quantity of resources in favor of the IRI, the "rate" of growth under the pahlavis was far greater than it is under the IRI.

Regarding your statement: "98% of all villages have electricity, drinking water, health clinic, schools and road to major highways. In the last year of the Shah, the same number was only 7%..." I have to disagree with these  numbers. I do travel to Iran a lot. I do visit shahrestans a lot. For example, I have visited the kordestan area and I can tell you with confidence that 98 percent does not apply to kordestan. Kurds are fighting in vain to get more of the oil revenue for infrastructure work you just described. I am sure things could be worst in some other provinces.

Re: Mamad

I agree with you. The fact that the 53 coup was sponsored by CIA is irefutable, but I disagree with you regarding its execution. I don't recall from any source that American soldiers or CIA officers were in Tehran during that day executing the coup. Iranians executed the coup. They were helped by the CIA. But that's where it ends. CIA did not have god like powers which you think it did.

The same way you blame the shah's mistakes for the rise of mullahs (which I agree), you can go back one step and blame Mosadegh for the rise of the shah and ultimately the mullahs later.

Had Mosadegh not resorted to dictatorial ways, had he not closed the democratically elected parlemant, had he allowed democracy to take its course, had he not chosen the wrong "all or nothing" policy thereby putting Iran in the danger of break up, the way would not be paved for the shah to become the dictator that he was. You cannot just blame the shah.

We can always go back farther. Let's blame the Ghajars. But why stop there? Let's blame the Safavids and the Sasanids. Heck, I say let's blame cyrus the great for creating Iran in the first place.

I am not rewriting history. I challenge you to take a look at my previous post and tell me which part was "rewriting" of history? I challenge you to do this.

Legitimate through a foreign-sponsored coup?

In response to Jamshid:

Even if we agree with all of your "facts," that the 1953 coup was CIA-MI6-foreign sponsored and executed is irrefutable. Therefore, as I said, no matter how one sugar coats the Shah's regime, his government and rule were illegitimate.

With all due respect, you are rewriting history in order to sugar coat the Shah's regime. The Shah himself told Kermit Roosevelt, "I owe my rule to you and the United States." (Read Roosevelt's memoirs, or Stephen Kinzer's book, or too many other books, articles, etc.), just as he said in 1357, "I heard your revolutionary voice." Only in the mind of Shahollahi's the 1953 coup was legitimate and spontaneously organized by "people".

Regarding work on Iran's infrastructure, the amount of work done in Iran since the end of Iran/Iraq war is simply fantastic. Even a simple trip throughout Iran will show that. A few simple examples: During the entire 53 years of the Pahlavi regime, Iran built 2700 km of railroads. We now have close to 10,000 km of railroads in Iran. The number of universities and higher-education institutions has increased by a factor of 12. 98% of all villages have electricity, drinking water, health clinic, schools and road to major highways. In the last year of the Shah, the same number was only 7%, not according to me, but according to the World Bank statistics.

The problem with the reign of the IRI is NOT that nothing has been done for the country, but the bloody and reactionary nature of the IRI, and the fact that it considers itself the government of God on Earth, which means that one cannot oppose it, even peacefully.

Homa & Mammad

I agree with both of you in regards to K Sassanian.

I think we should leave him alone to rant his mouth with couple of other known people who you can see their foot prints all over this site. 

He's no different than the other moran cartoonist ,they all hide behind fake names while their identity is oozing thru their sick words, just like that elephant who was wearing sun glasses to disguise .  ........................CHICKENS........................ 

Re: Mamad

Mamad, I agree with you regarding historical context. But where is your own historical context?

Fact: Mosadegh's government became illegitimate the moment Mosadegh closed the popular and democratically elected parliament. The same parliament that appointed him to the post of prime minsiter. The same parliament that made it possible for Mosadegh to be considered the first popular and democratically elected prime minister. He closed the majles because he "disagreed" with the members of the majles.

Fact: If today Bush orders the military to close the Senate because its members disagree with Bush, it will be considered a coup.

Fact: The released CIA documents indicate that US/UK plan B for Iran was to arm the then mostly Arab populated population of Khuzestan and support their separatist movement against Iran. They even had considered how to appease and silence the Soviets. They would offer Azarbayejan to them.

Fact: In 1953, Iran did not have any military or even money to stop this from happening.

Fact: The "democratically elected" parliament disagreed with Mosadegh's "all or nothing" policy because it was taking a weak Iran down an unrecoverable spiral against two superpowers. The parliament prefered a "kajdaro mariz" policy to buy Iran time.

Fact: Mosadegh disagreed. Therefore he closed the parliament.

Fact: Had Mosadegh remained in power, and Iran was broken up, and it WOULD be broken up, today he would not be any hero.

Fact: Iranians prefer to make a hero out of dead people. We crave for it.

Fact: All Mosadegh dreams and much more regarding Iran's oil were realized by 1973, 20 years later with Iran intact.

I will reply to your other "facts" later.

Re: Lostidentity

Since when defending the truth is equivalent to "worship" of shah?

I said TODAY, TODAY as in 2008, among the third world countires, and among the 40+ years olds, Iran is the most literate. Then I asked WHEN did those 40+ years olds learn to read? It was during the shah's reign. So it is a credit NOT to the IRI, but to the shah's regime.

When the first Pahalvi started his literacy campaign, Iran was 99 percent illiterate. Therefore the campaign started with very little resource and the youth became the main target, not the middle aged or olders. In 1978, of the 12 million school age children, more than 11 million were in schools. Even the IRI's Education Ministry does not deny that. That is a monumental credit to all the men and women who were involved in the education system under the pahlavis. Today we are still feeding from it.

Just because you hate the pahlavis, you cannot take this credit away from all those who tirelessly worked to make this success possible.

Your 15% literacy rate is false. Just go do the math with numbers available in the IRI's Education Ministry for the pre-revolution years.

In the last 15 years we had made very little progress. We would make a small progress even if real donkeys were ruling Iran. Iran and Iranians are capable of much more than IRI's turtule steps.

Mammad Rabani (On Kourosh Sassanian)

I agree with you. Everyopne across this site has a comment on that :) He is "Silly" !!

Kourosh Sassanian

I read in Bahmani's Blog (//iranian.com/main/blog/bahmani/we-certai...) that you have multiple personalities and use different names depending on how nasty you want to get.
.
It said you are: "Kourosh Sassanian", "Ahmad Bahai", "Anonymouspb", "Anonymous2008", "babakoohi", "Kos Sher"
.
Why?

I have lots of respect for

I have lots of respect for the Leftists of the pre-revolution. They truly put their lives sincerely on line for their people. Golesorkhi is one of the icons.
The point is that being Chrik was "IN STYLE" those days, but the islamic movement really put a big dent in their belief - They realized that they can be effective opposition without resorting to a foreign idea. This was a big blow to the leftists that shah could not even dream of.

Re: Jamshid and Shahparasti

It is very naive to credit shah for a limited progress Iran made in few decades from 1950 to 1980. This is the era of global construction after wwii and has nothing to do with competency of shah. I'm not saying he was bad or traitor. Blaming country's misery or success on just one person is our good old Iranian trait. I say whatever happened and is happening is because our nation not shah or khomeini. True they are contributors biut not the main contributors. Let's believe in ourselves and take the responsibility an dpride!
Shah made some cosmetic revolutions and progress but nothing in the infrastructure and long lasting. That is wy the army was totally destroyed and was incompetent in few years, industry died, agreeculture was already destroyed and education system was terrible (15% literacy rate during shah).What highest rate of literacy in the 40+ age??? Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaase!!!!

I think we have taken major steps in the infrastructure of the country in last 15 years that will stay with our nation even if regime changes - Why? because it is in the mind and heart of people. People have already made the move. I don't give the credit to regime but rather the people. Yes, regimes are instrumental to create the momentum and pave the road but it starts with people.

Hindsight is great. Where did historical context go?

All the commentators benefit from hindsight, and forget about the historical context in which such events took place.

Fact: The Shah's regime was illegitimate after the CIA-MI6 coup of 1953, no matter how one sugar coats it. It was a puppet of Britain and the United States.

Fact: The illegitimate regime of the Shah was a dictatorship of the worst kind. Political "parties" such as Iran-e Novin, Mardom, etc., were just ridiculous shows to give the impression that Iran was a multiparty nation.

Fact: On Esfand 12, 1353 (March 3, 1975), the Shah declared establishment of the truly fascist party, Rastakhiz, and disbanded all other "parties." He could not even tolerate the so-called political parties of Iran-e Novin, Mardom, etc.

Fact: On the same day, the Shah declared that, "anyone who does not like Rastakhiz and a one-party system, can get his passport and leave Iran." Compare this with what the fascist ayatollah, Mesbah Yazdi, said recently, "anyone who does not like the Islamic regime, should get his passport and leave Iran."

Fact: The Shah's regime was allied with some of the worst regimes on the face of earth. From the racist apartheid regime of South Africa, to South Vietnam, to all other dictorships around the world that were supported by the US.

Fact: The opposition to the Shah's regime in the 1960s never wanted to overthrow him, but wanted him to only be a figurehead, as the Constitution had demanded. Even Ayatollah Khomeini who led the 1963 uprising did not want to overthrow him. He repeatedly said at that time (this is well-documented) that, "maa mikhaahim tow saltanat konid, na hokoumat."

Fact: The opposition was also opposing the Shah peacefully. But the Shah jailed them all by 1965. As Mahdi Bazargan, leader of Freedom Movement, said in his military trial show at that time, "we are the last group that is talking to you peacefully. Next time the opposition to you will be violent." How true was that prophecy.

Fact: Mojahedin and Fadaaeen both grew out of the frustration of the opposition to the Shah, after he banned the National Front, the Freedom Movement, and all other political groups. They saw armed struggle as the only way to break the back of the absolute repression of the Sha's regime (whether that was the correct course of action is a different matter).

Fact: These groups were also influenced by the Algerian independence war that liberated Algeria from France in earlt 1960s, the Vietnam war that had defeated France in Dien Bien Fu in 1954, and was defeating the US, and the leftist movement in South America that was governed at that time by military dictatorships supported by the United States. The success of Fidel Castro, in particular, in toppling the totally corrupt, Mafia-like regime of Batista in Cuba that was supported and controlled by the US was also a motivating factor.

Fact: The fact that the Revolution was led by the mullahs was only because the Shah had wiped off the secular democratic opposition, like the National Front, the Freedom Movement, and the leftist groups. He could not even tolerate Iran-e Novin, and similar "parties," let alone the true opposition.

Fact: Iran's economy was doing relatively well in the early 1350s, but the gap between the rich and the poor was widening rapidly, particularly after the oil price hike of 1352 (1973). The sudden wealth brought in by the oil, and the Mafia-like regime of the Shah in which a very small group controlled everything, contributed greatly to the volatile anti-Shah opposition. Just read Asadollah Alam's memoirs.

Ghatebeh, who says that he was 10 years old at that time, could not possibly judge what was ging on, but I was in a student in Tehran University at that time, and I and people like me could see where the country was going at that time under that dictatorship.

One thing that most of the commentators do not realize is this: Even if all the claims about the economic success of the Shah's regime are true, they would only go to show why the Revolution had to happen. Why? Because in any country in which there is economic success but no freedom, people demand political freedom. China is a good example. If the freedom does not come with economic success, a revolution will.

This is the historical context in which those events took place.

Now, about the hindsight: Yes, we now know what has happened to Iran over the past 30 years. But, if people who supported the Revolution (i.e., at least 95% of the population) knew this would be the state of Iran now, would they have still supported it? Perhaps, but not the way they did it in 1978-1979. They would have tried it peacefully and through reforms. The Shah recognized the depth of hatret toward his regime too late.

The Revolution would have happen, one way or another, because it was legitimate and necessary. What happened AFTER the revolution does not take away the legitimacy of the Revolution itself.

So, before we start attacking and blaming each other, we should set aside hindsight and only consider the correct historical context.

One final fact: The people who were murdered by the Shah and the IRI at least had the conviction and courage to stand up for their belief, regardless of whether their belief was right or wrong. They were willing to even sacrifice their own lives. Compare that with the so-called opposition in exile: Yes, it is easy to live in the US, have a quiet and successful life, and shout "marg bar mullahs."

Re: Jesus

I disagree with a few of your comments about the shah.

1. I will continue talking about the shah's regime being progressive because it was progressive. My proof is comparing Iran of 1948 to Iran of 1978. That is a 30 years period. The same length of time IRI has been in place. Do you even know what Iran was in 1948 and what we were in 1978? If those 30 years were not progress, then what is progress?

2. I do agree that his regime and his mistakes contributed to the rise of the mullahs.

3. I also do agree that the elimination of the parties and his uni-party system was a BIG mistake. So was the supression of media.

4. You say that "it was a country with lots of illiterate peasants" Answer me why Iran has the highest rate of literacy among third world countries among its population of 40+, EVEN if you only consider its peasants? Then answer when did that segment of population learn to read?

You want to falsely accuse the shah of the SAME crap that were fed to us during the revolution. Sorry, I was poisoned by the same CRAP once, and it just hits a nerve to hear it again after 30 years.

Shah was a problem, and he had to go...

You all know how I feel about IR, and their supporters here on this site. I will be the first to piss on the graves of any akhouk. But let's not talk about Shah's reign as progressive, or compare ourselves to being the second Japan, or a western European country had he been there.
Rise of the hated IR did not happen in a vacuum. In other words, we can not decouple the reign of Shah from the rise of the mullahs to power. Shah is not responsible for the despicable, and murderous acts committed by the mullahs in Iran, but he is responsible for creating an environment that facilitated the mullah's rise to power.
Shah was a sick, megalomaniac dictator who had abused Iran's history, mythology, and legacy to further advance his autocratic rule. By 1978, the self-aggrandizing had reached an absurd level. Elimination of pseudo-political parties in Iran, and grand vision of Persian Gulf under its "rightful" owner, and new wave of repression in media, and print had created a suffocating atmosphere.
How were Iranians so dumb to accept some degenerate like Kosmeini? easy, Iran looked superficially a country on the verge of greatness. Deep inside, it was a country with lots of illiterate peasants, restless youth population that lacked any critical thinking, and followed the commies, and leftist like robots. All these are a credit to Shah. This is what happens when one man thinks he knows what is best for a country. He was a pitiful figure, and at the end, the half of ton of military medals he used to hang on his uniform proved as much about his skill as a soldier as his 30 year old reign did for Iran. Simply void of any substance!

I saw a piece here on Bakhtiar, I was always a big fan and supporter of him. Shahravan Bakhtiar, may he always rest in peace and tranquility because he actually is one of the few who deserves it.

Wake up PEOPLE!

When are we going to learn to evaluate people based on their political platforms and not their emotional crap????  These leftists "intellectuals" (they are anything but "intellectual") are the people who believed and promoted systesm like those of Stalin and Mao for Iran!!!  You think the "mullahs" are bad, God help us if any idiots like these "leftists" ever come to power in Iran!!! 

Private Pilot

I'll slap you all, bitches....

Jamshid jaan,
bia jeloo yek chake moohkam bazanam bar on sorratat GHERESHMAAL... :-) (Just kidding)
We must collectivlly confess that we were bunch of ignorant idiots to let go of Shah's regime (poor guy had only 3000 terrorists in prison) and support bunch of Islamic & Communists terrorists & thugs to overthrow a civilization that had relatively a decent economy, complete sovereignty and a fantastic potential in social, spiritual & economical growth..... We would have excelled like most western European countries had it not been for so many idiots who supported bunch of terrorists who occupied our homeland... I was a kid back in 1978- 1979, but I swore to GOD, I was disgusted by ALL the Islamic & Mojahed & other communist looks... Call me superficial, I don't give a damn... I mean look at bunch of ugly, smelly & dirty akhoonds lead by an asshole like Khomeini who said he had no feelings when returning to IRAN on board of fucking Air France & during that famous "HEECHEE" interview! (He basically meant that he didn't give a flying fuck about IRAN & Iranians & he was on his way to fuck us all...) Ain't that the truth!!! how could so many people in IRAN be so fuckin dumb??? And how could all those so called intellectualls be so so so STUPID????? WE WERE BUNCH OF IDIOTS! WE MUST KNOW IT BY NOW!? THE NEW GENERATION IN IRAN DEFINITELY KNOWS IT AND THE WORLD KNOWS IT TOO... WHEN ARE WE GOING TO CONFESS, APOLOGIZE & ASK FOR FORGIVENESS TO OUR NEW GENERATION IN IRAN & THE WORLD? WHEN?

the cowards

Back in 1981, to humor my dear sister, I attended one of
these leftist meeting. Now The interesting part was the idiot
head assigned dangerous jobs to be done by these kids, most of them either got killed or jailed. The idiot he got political asylum in the USA and now lives in LA. The idiot had the idiocy to call me and ask for money. I told him, he should be in the grave instead of my sister. I think next to MKO, they are the worst cowards, but not as stupid as MKO.

koja?

If we want to know where we are going we must know where we have been.

Tragic and Bloody Mistake!

These were kids who were misdirected after 1953 coup. Some were bright like Bijan Jazani who has written some of the most detailed and accurate accounts of Iran's recent history, Tarikhe Si-Saleh-e Iran, among other works. He has detailed account of events that lead to 1979 revolution and predicted the potential for ascendancy of Khomeini in that book in early 70s.

In retrospect, the history and activities of this organization looks so much more repugnant today than their earlier days, in 1970s. However, one should look at them in their historical context.

Briefly:

The creation of Cherikai-e Fadayi-e Khalg (CFK) was to deliver what the Tudeh party did not (or could not) in 1953. Jazani (founder) and other younger generation of the Tudeh were deeply discouraged by the lack of initiative from the military wing of the Tudeh in 1953. Therefore, he and others established CFK with the sole purpose of bringing "socialism" by advocating "armed struggle"( or terrorism as we know it today!). This was then, and remains today the most unacceptable reason for starting a political movement, plain stupid. But, this was not unique to Iran.

To understand possible reasons behind such idiocy, one must remember the world events and history at the time. These were college kids who were caught up with the worldwide radicalism of the time. War in Vietnam against communism, decades long Marxist insurgencies in South America had grown into an "armed struggle" campaign against capitalism by Castro and Che Guevara. The coming to the scene of the European left extremism like Bader Meinhof -- RAF (Red Army Faction), with emphasis on "armed struggle" (read terrorism), cultural revolution of Chinese communists and many others! Left extremism was fashionable for college youth world wide, and Iran was fertile ground with its own history with Tudeh party.

Therefore, the "armed struggle" ideology was not exclusively an extremist Iranian concept at all. The CFK saw the 1953 coup as a military defeat and in response advocated an armed struggle against the regime Fortunately, the time for "socialism" in Iran had passed by the demise of Tudeh party in the 1950s. It is said that Leonid Brezhnev (in the 60's or 70's) had likened the possibility of Iran joining the "socialist" camp to "…a rotten apple". CFK was a bloody and tragic mistake, plain and simple.

And it goes without saying that the second (bigger) tragedy was the posturing of these groups during 1979 events that mislead many educated people who could not see the lurking Islamic catastrophe behind these groups.

Moderator:
Please delete previous version

Tragic and bloody mistake!

These were kids who were misdirected after 1953 coup. Some were bright like Bijan Jazani who has written some of the most detailed and accurate accounts of Iran's recent history, Tarikhe Si-Saleh-e Iran, among other works. He has detailed account of events that lead to 1979 revolution and predicted the potential for ascendancy of Khomeini in that book in early 70s.

In retrospect, the history and activities of this organization looks so much more repugnant today than their earlier days, in 1970s. However, one should look at them in their historical context.

Briefly:

The creation of Cherikai-e Fadayi-e Khalg (CFK) was to deliver what the Tudeh party did not (or could not) in 1953. Jazani (founder) and other younger generation of the Tudeh were deeply discouraged by the lack of initiative from the military wing of the Tudeh in 1953. Therefore, he and others established CFK with the soul purpose of bringing "socialism" by advocating "armed struggle"( or terrorism as we know it today!). This was then, and remains today the most unacceptable reason for starting a political movement, plain stupid. But, this was not unique to Iran.

To understand possible reasons behind such idiocy, one must remember the world events and history at the time. These were college kids who were caught up with the worldwide radicalism of the time. War in Vietnam against communism, decades long Marxist insurgencies in South America had grown into an "armed struggle" campaign against capitalism by Castro and Che Guevara. The coming to the scene of the European left extremism like Bader Meinhof -- RAF (Red Army Faction), with emphasis on "armed struggle" (read terrorism), cultural revolution of Chinese communists and many others! Left extremism was fashionable for college youth world wide, and Iran had its own history with Tudeh party.

Therefore, the "armed struggle" ideology was not exclusively an extremist Iranian concept at all. The CFK saw the 1953 coup as a military defeat and in response advocated an armed struggle against the regime Fortunately, the time for "socialism" in Iran had passed by the demise of Tudeh party in the 1950s. It is said that Leonid Brezhnev (in the 60's or 70's) had likened the possibility of Iran joining the "socialist" camp to "…a rotten apple". CFK was a bloody and tragic mistake, plain and simple.

And it goes without saying that the second (bigger) tragedy was the posturing of these groups during 1979 events that mislead many educated people who could not see the lurking Islamic catastrophe behind these groups.

Must praise whoever stood against mullahs

These brave souls fought the tyranny of shah’s regime and Khomeini’s Islamo-fascist state the only way they knew how 30 years ago. Their bravery is applaudable and need recognition, although their ideology is not. If they knew what we know 30 years later and seen what the world has gone thru in the past 30 years, I am sure they would have acted and thought differently. And to all the retarded bastards applauding their execution and demise on this site and everywhere, just know this that in 30 years from now your bastard children are going to say “shashidam to reesh begherat aghab oftadatoon ke in hame sal ba yeh regime mesleh IRI sakhtin o mesleh gosfand o khar chizi nagoftim, you deserved that regime and mullahs as they suited you retarded monkeys“ on a new medium yet to be invented.

As I descrided in my

As I descrided in my article, Constitutional calsh, on this site,  in fall, 1979, the office of the Iranian Writers Centre, a democratic publishing group, was confiscated and its literature banned. The director, Said Soltanpour, a famous poet and playwright,, was arrested at his wedding and executed on June 21, 1981. Other members of the Writers Centre were forced underground or into exile.

It is to mention that at this time Mr. Soltanpour belonged to a Fedayin Organisation, which was in the opposition and later had to spit into 2 factions. The first one, Minority, remained in the opposition, while the second one, Majority, joined the Tudeh Party to unconditionally support and collaborate with the IRI in the first years of massive reprssion.

Second point, the organisation and the left in general was in those days still popular in Iran. Many students and youth sympathised with the left without knowing much about the ideology.

Today, Soltanpour and all leftists who were victims of the barbaric IRI are to be respected even if their ideology can be disputred due to its controversial results.