Author's name, please.

Quick with sneaky and useless comments but too lazy to read?

See if you have the brains to find the obvious information in the blog. Hint: click on one of the links or look at the picture.

There were a lot questions surrounding Ghotb Zadeh such as, who was he, where he came from, whose payroll was he on, how he got so close to Khomeini, and even his sexual orientation. And there was the Canadian girlfriend!

His quick demise left many questions unanswered.

True cult believers, be it the Khomeini cult, Jim Jones cult, Lenin cult, MAGA cult. etc., are the most dangerous and un-persuadable, regardless of what you present to them. They'll justify this first hand account by some whataboutism, or conspiracy theory. On another note, the global conspiracy against the Shah was very real. The U.S. simply did not want competition for dominance in the Middle East, and especially the Persian Gulf, which at the time, was the bloodline of the industrialized world (less so now), and Shah was quickly becoming a suprising competitor to the U.S. Hence the need for him to go. So, send in Huyser and the rest. And of course, internally there was no shortage of clueless an-tellectual communists and brainless religious zealots who unwittingly help accomplish the U.S. agenda.

From slaughtering animals to slaughtering human is easy and short distance. As he said in his write up, he and his father were butchers. That makes sense. Islamic criminals spotted him very quickly to do their dirty work. 

Gotb Zadeh was a "kar chagh kon" not a leader and was connected to Yazdi/Americans and French. His womanizing boozing pattern was similar to the mollas Shafie Zadeh describes early in the book. His usefulness ended once Khomeini got on the plane to Iran. He knew too much. His demise was mutually beneficial to Americans/Yazdi & Khomeini. One might think in midst of a massive "revolution", constant sex and booz, would not be top of mind; but one would be wrong. Canadian affair you mention, fits his pattern.

Anonymous_Observer, the author of this book is an interesting character, an accidental revolutionary and opportunist with little emotion or remorse, by his own description. Shah never contested with or picked on U.S. even as he built Iran. But wheels of change were in motion since 1973. Not coincidental to sudden fame of Shariati and big following among anntelectuals

He may have not overtly picked on the U.S. But his military and industrial build up said otherwise, and was of great concern to the U.S. His last interviews with Mike Wallace (available on YouTube) are quite revealing. They shed great light on U.S.'s thinking at the time.

Agree. That aspect is well documented and explains Huyser you mentioned.

Siavash, In the book he talks about how in practice executions (Syria training camp in this case) they put balloons full of blood in place of heart for dummies they shot at so when they hit target real blood flowed, hence getting shooter used to blood spilling. Several Mollas had suggested using cow or sheep blood was a good idea because it was like human blood.

Jafar Zadeh also explains his first real execution, shooting at 9 people in training camp in Syria, and he admits he felt NOTHING. Much like Khomeini in response to how you feel as he was landing in Iran.

By reading biographies of all those people who came to power after revolution such as Jafar Shafine Zadeh or Mahmood Ahmadi Nejad... etc,   I concluded that all these people have had one thing in common. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone on this site or in other Iranian sites mention anything about it. One thing in common. They all came from the most deprived section of our society...  I think the crash of MIddle Class and big gap between rich and poor was the main reason for revolution. I still believe if the gap between rich and poor was moderate and system was paying more attention to poor and deprived section of our society, revolution would never been happened.

Having said that,  Khomain also gave a lots of promises

He promised to woman veil (Hejab) would NOT be compulsary. He was asking them to help him to reach power. Women helped him to reach power.  He made veil (Hejab) mandatory once he sat on peacock thron. 

He promised "communists would be free to express their opinions", so he was asking them to help him to reach power. Communists helped him to reach power, but Khomainie executed all of them once he sat on peacock thron. 

Similar promises he made to outside world.

   Khomainie promised Americans that "their interests in Iran would be protected" and asked them to help him to reach power. They also helped him to reach power. He took Americans hostage once he sat on peacock throne. 

Dr. Bakhtiar was saying that he had never seen such a "Charlatan old man" in his entire life. I was a child in those days and didn't understand the meaning of Charlatan, but now I understand what he meant. 

I do not believe the wealth distribution at time of Shah was a, or the, problem. Iran’s revolution has a reputation of having been committed by people on full stomach. Indeed, Shfie zadeh talks about fat, rich partying, kabob eating, boozing and prostitute loving mollas doing all of this while planning for “revolution” and how they had loads of cash money to throw around including on him. Also, some of the mercenaries like shafie zadeh may have come from lower economic classes, but they were by no means deprived or desperate. The butcher shop he worked at was owned by his dad. However, to the extent that the very poor had a role, it wis because mollas were targeting and recruiting from the fringes as they still do, for obvious reasons.

Also, statistically, per capita, and PPP (purchasing power parity) adjusted, Iranians as a whole and in terms of classes were doing well; best in the region by a huge distance, and I recall a ranking in rich nations list as high as 11^th in 1978. YOY economic growth of about %35 (I think it was 1975) was a world record that has yet to be matched by anyone including China on its best year.

Iran did not have anything near levels and extent of poverty or wealth gap it has experienced since 79, and unlike Shah, the slimic system enjoyed much faster rising oil demand and prices.

No doubt Iran's economy was developed rapidly from 1975 till revolution. That was NOT the point. My point was contribution of wealth among Iranians.

 For example, this guy Jafar was traveling from Dusseldort to Munich after revolution. The question is : was he or his father able to make that trip before revolution ? NO. Similarly other people who were active during revolution and presently occupied official governmental jobs such as Ahmadi Nejad.

 Before revolution,  many Iranian families were importing maids from Filipean to work in their homes. Before revolution, many of my relatives were going to London to do a noise job.  it was in late 70's. Did this guy (Jafar)'s  sister could afford to go to London to do noise job ?  Of course NOT. Annual medical check up in London was very common among wealthy Iranian families in those days. Is this guy (Jafar) or anyone in his family or relatives could do such a thing ? Of course NOT. His father could only afford to go to Isfahan from his villiage to bring ship to slaughter. Could he travel to Europe or Dusserldorf for vacation ? Of course NOT.  He could only do so in his dreams  I knew many Iranian families who were going south of France in those days. They were coming back and describe how fantastic was their trip.

 There is an area in suburb of Karaj which is called "Zoor Abad" the residents took those shanty houses by force before revolution. I personally knew some of those residents who played major role during revolution and brought Khomaini to power. One of them came to our house to do some work and I met him in person. I remember vividly. He was talking highly of Khomaini.  The residents of that area were the most deprived section of our society and they were very active during revolution. It is very sad to see everyone on this site know someone by the name of Hyser,  but nobody recall or even know residents of Zoor Abad. Very sad. 

I got your point and the statistics I mentioned was to address that point. Iran was not problem free, or perfect before devolution but it was normal. It certainly had pleanty of wealth gap. But wealth 'distribution' was far better than 20 years after devolution or now.

For every zoor Abad before 79, there is 20 now. I remember in certain parts of southern Tehran, one would see children on the street here and there. For every one of those then, there are a 1000 now. By their own statistics slimic republic has something more than 30% of Iranians below poverty line (and that is before the current mass and Rial crash even started), and never mind the massive addition problem, prostitution, mafia economy...

Comparing any normal government with IRI is very difficult because it is beyond Erteja' and their thirst for blood, their utter incompetence in fundamental governance and economic management is difficult to grasp given the wealth of Iran. And no matter what common sense and statistic you mention, their PR armies B.S. about 'jang tahmili' that Khomeini actually fingered saddam into, and sanctions (that they leveraged to funnel country's wealth), and....

Every single misery, poverty, disgrace you pointed out in your comment is absolutely correct. No doubt about it. Poor couldn't get to the level of rich but they were able to bring down rich to their level. That was the meaning of this devolution.

  Now, they do NOT feel envy to the people who could spend their summers in south of France.  Now, they would NOT be envy of people who were importing maids from Filipean. Now, they do NOT see the people who were driving last model American cars on streets and look at them like piece a dirt. Now, they do NOT see any flashy or luxurious life style to feel resentment. Now, everybody is poor and struggle to survive.

To make a long story short. Poverty by itself, as we see it these days,  DOES NOT social change. Antagonistic (تضاد اجتماعی) create social change. This factor is much more important than external forces such as America plot, Brits plot, ...  Hyser ....etc. 

If ocean gap between rich and poor wouldn't exist or consideration would have been given to deprived section of our society such as Zoor Abad, the devolution would have never happened. 

Your assertions are generally true but very general. You have many zoor abads in many parts of the world including right here in U.S.; never mind homeless populations and wealth gap that exceeds that of period before great depression. It does not translate into revolutions everywhere.

The mollas did not have the wherewithall to pull a mass protest, let alone a revolution. The 79 devolution was impossible if it were not via a massive sustained foreign coordination, funding and support that literally had an American general on the ground in Shiraz coordinating things without knowledge of the key ruling people and Shah. Plus recruiting the scum of society (mollas and basiji type), all prepped by long term (at least since 1973) fertilizing the ground with Shariati types and massive rousing and brainwashing of people via Ayatollah BBC. That is a point of this blog and Shafie Zadeh provides an inside view into the scum that were generals and foot soldiers of destruction of Iran.

The question is : How come the same people who came with bare hands in front of guns, tanks in 1979, they are reluctant to come out now ? Why ? How come they did NOT afraid of bullets in those days, but they are afraid now if the fear is a factor ? There were so many opportunities in last 40 years that mass could demonstrate their hate like 1979, but they were reluctant to do so Why ? Who are these people who go to vote ? They could easily sit at their homes and be indiffernt. No one expect to take a gun and fight against mullahs. Just sit at home and become indifferent, but they don't do it and they go to vote. Why they choose to go to vote if they are unhappy ? Even democratic movement in 2009 did NOT mobilize people as 1979. In 79, they were determinded to topple the regime, but they are NOT willing to do so now. Why ? Furthermore,  Democratic movement was NOT as poplar as 1979. Why ? Political parties such as Fadaeyan, Mojaheddin recruiting the youths against mullahs since early 1980's (the same thing Shariati was doing with youths in his time) , but non of these political parties were able successfully  bring people on streets like they did in 1979. Why ? 

Siavash,

Is your point that this revolution was organic and Iranians were not manipulated? If so, then you are part of a majority of Iranians that bought the bullshit then, and a minority still believing it.

How many uprisings and endless fights with this blood thirsty regime to prove the point? Shah killed a few hundred at peak of devolution and stopped; and islamists made the biggest pile of lies from that plus cinema Rex. Yet, these slimic bastards have killed and executed more than 300,000 people (never mind a million or so dead at war that fucking Khomeini stretched to consolidate power), or ‘moderate’ Rouhani is breaking execution records. You would shit in your pants too and think twice before running into streets even without guns and tanks.

 As saying goes مار گزیده از ریسمان سیاه و سفید میترسه and with Iraq war, Afghanistan war, Syria, EU deals, Obama giving them a lifeline, Soviet Union falling apart, global shift to systemic thievery and U.S. abandoning defense of Human Rights (same reason that POS Carter went after Shah for), a kniving Russia and rising China as masters of  Khamenei, their bitch. In addition to their murderous style, this regime has alsobeen the luckiest in history with a slew of global events. Never mind a total control state with Huawei switches and routers, or 2009 uprising of the whole post 79 generation in numbers far larger than any Mojahedin, fadayeen, or islamists for that matter. They had this regime on its knees and about collapsed if it were not for two scumbags called Mousavi and Kahroubi, or mass murders of tens of thousands in 88….

How the hell a shepeshoo khomeini lands from Paris and not get labeled a fuc%$^g agent is still beyond me. Especially by کار کاره انگلیس هاس culture that called everyone else with far less scum a foreign agent.

That is the problem. We don’t know our history, or don’t remember it.

Thanks for the informative comment.

Many years ago, I had a Russian girl friend who used to take me to Russian events. In the events I met many old timers from Russian's revolution era. I was surprised to hear that many of them strongly believed Oct revolution 1917 was the work of America to detroy Russia. Similar goes with Cuba during Batista or Chili during Salvator Allendeh. They believed foreign power or mainly America destroyed Allendeh regim otherwise Allendeh or socialism was doing fine.  

    All social changes have one basic and foundamental simirality. Like I siad before, antagonistic create social movement or social change. Without antagonistic the impact of outside power is very slim. All Social revolts have tendency to resolve antagonistic within the society. it applies to any society that experience social revolt. From Russian revolution 1917, all the way to China revolution 1948 , Hungeria 1956 and Cuba 1962 and eventually Vietnam 1975.  Having said that I don't deny the outside manipulation of event. We see the manipulation of social movement in Egypt by outsiders or Khominie promises to ourtside powers which had positive respond.