Javid Shah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUN4HBVitbE

Every single day that goes by, I hope those who were instrumental in the deconstruction of Iran - insider and outsiders alike - and are still alive, tell themselves "ajab gohi khordeem".

I only hope that we as a nation learn from our mistakes, but almost 40 years after the islamist take over, it doesn't look like we have!

Shah and his father were true patriots and loved Iran unlike the cockroaches infesting Iran and her institutions now from the "refromers" to the asswipes in universities who cherish the alien religion forced upon their ancestor through rape and blood.

Thankyou Siavash joon,

As Ex-Cop correctly stated above, Shah and his father were indeed patriots who loved Iran. I believe one thing that Iranian religious fanatics and radical leftists share with Iran's enemies is their use of anti-nationalist rhetoric.

The religious fanatics share the same hate for Iran's pre-Islamic and secular culture that characterize our Sunni Arab neighbors' views toward Iranian history.

The ultra-left among us even go so far as to 'blame' Shah for any trace of secular nationalism left in Iranian society. That our history and culture have been systematically attacked by both the Islamic Republic and their former leftist allies and that the resurgence of pro secular nationalist and pro-Shah feelings among today's young people is a response to this 37 year long attack is completely ignored.

They will continue to ignore the reality of today's situation at their own peril. 

Javid Shah

All good bu sadly the damage is done. the great man is gone and the country has become a shia hole. what to do now? 

You're welcome ArvandRud. Thanks Ex_cop for his/her suggestion. 

You address the issue correctly. Right at the point. Yes, religious fanatics and left are both enemies of Iran and Iranian people. Of course, Sunni Arabs share the same sentiment with them.

Our culture and our glorious history is under attack by those 2 entities during last 37 years. Our new Iranian generation needs to wake up and see what is happening to Iran.  

One good criterion to know those who inflicted the most damage: They still believe Shah was worse than ayatollahs and deserved to go.

2 distinct groups comprise the bulk of this category: IR and the Tude party and its splinters.

If there was ever a case for reform, it was during Shah's rein and Bakhtiar's government. But the "Oghdeh-ei" Islamists and Tudeh-ei/Commies wanted blood and lots of it.

Well, they got it, first on their hands, and later on their own throats.

Dorood Faravan Va Bekaran Be Shahanshah Aryamehr Bozorg Arteshdaran!

Dont mean to spoil this party..... but perhaps if the shahanshah had chosen his friends more  wisely, there would have been no Revolution in Bahman 1357 followed by the Islamist counter Revolution in Khordad 1360 where people's thoats started getting very seriously bloody.

Salam  Siavash
As you know I have lots of respect for you and also for your belief, even if they differs from mine.
May his soul rests in peace.
The one that I really deplore in this family, is Farah and not Shah, himself. Because he is dead but she is still alive and unfortunately endures  the sadness of loosing three loved ones.
But I am amused of seeing some comments here as : Javid Shah or Doroud bar Shah.... etc :)
Someone must remind these dudes that Shah is dead now....
Anyhow,
I have read a text today somewhere in the internet, not related to this subject, yet very accurate. Just wanted to share it with you as my own opinion:

"Benign tyrants. Friendly despots. Kindly dictators. Do they exist? There are leaders who see themselves in this light. They impose themselves on a nation because that nation needs them - or so they believe. After enough coercion from the military, the people themselves may come to believe it is true"

All the bests

Bah bah bah.....Topol Khanoom...! Never knew jenabaali be Shahanshah eraaddat dashteen!

Constitution of 1911? Could you elaborate please? any reference?

Dear Mehrban, did you try it in Farsi?

I've got something here for you. I am searching for more source:

http://www.sohailmedia.com/VisitorPages/show.aspx?IsDetailList=true&ItemID=5820,1

از مهمترین دلایل اختلاف بین شاه و نخست‌وزیر ایران، مصدق، تلاش مصدق برای در کنترل گرفتن ارتش بود. در طول دوران نخست‌وزیری‌اش، مصدق کوشید تا قدرت شاه را محدود به چارچوب مشخص‌شده در قانون اساسی مشروطه کند و او در غیر از ارتش در حوزه‌های دیگر موفق شده‌بود. در آن زمان ارتش عمدتاً وفادار به شاه باقی‌مانده‌بود و تحت تأثیر مستشاران نظامی امریکایی‌اش بود. هر چند افرادی در رده‌های بالای ارتش، طرفدار مصدق بودند.^[۴۹] مصدق تلاش کرد تا پست وزارت جنگ را از کنترل شاه خارج کند اما شاه نپذیرفت. مصدق استعفاء کرد؛ ولی با گسترش اعتراضات، شاه ناچار به عقب‌نشینی شد. مصدق به قدرت بازگشت و خانواده شاه را از کشور تبعید کرد.^[۵۰] در این دوره مصدق به وضوح، قدرت برتر کشور (نسبت به شاه) بود.^[۵۱]

یک سال پس از رویداد ۳۰ تیر ۱۳۳۱، شاه طی کودتای ۲۸ مرداد ۱۳۳۲ با طرح سازمان مخفی اطلاعات بریتانیا و سازمان اطلاعات مرکزی آمریکا، مصدق را برکنار نمود. این عملیات از روز ۲۵ مرداد آغاز شد. شاه پیش از آغاز عملیات به ویلایش در کلاردشت رفت و با شکست خوردن اولین مرحله از کودتای ۲۵ مرداد ابتدا به بغداد و سپس به رم رفت؛ ولی سه روز بعد، طرفداران شاه موفق به اجرای کودتای ۲۸ مرداد و تسخیر ساختمان رادیو و سایر مراکز دولتی شدند. تنها پس از آن بود که شاه به ایران بازگشت. مصدق برکنار، زندانی و پس از پایان دوره زندان، به احمدآباد تبعید شد.^[۵۲]

^{https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A7_%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87_%D9%BE%D9%87%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C#.D9.85.D9.84.DB.8C.E2.80.8C.D8.B4.D8.AF.D9.86_.D8.B5.D9.86.D8.B9.D8.AA_.D9.86.D9.81.D8.AA}

There are many online sources for the text of the constitution (I'm afraid I don't have the original one!) All of-course in Persian. Here is one of them. If you want to discuss this, please create another blog. Here it's not appropriate to carry on with this.

If I may limit my comment to the military and Bakhtiar, I believe that the Iranian military did the right thing to stay out of the politics. Shah made a mistake by bringing the tanks and the soldiers on the streets. When you put soldiers on the streets but don’t give them bullets, your intention is a show of force and not to put down the riots by the Islamist/commie mobs.

A military’s job is to safeguard the nation’s borders which the Iranian military did quite well. The problem in Iran was that a bunch of people who had no idea what they wanted to do about the country decided that getting rid of the Shah was the solution to their problems. And the late Shah refused to have a blood bath on the streets.

Another factor was the vilification of Shah being a puppet of the US. The nefarious Soviet-backed left allied with the darkest religious forces ran on this slogan, strengthening the subversive voice of a powerful social movement.

Compare this with the puppets of the Soviet Unions of that era and see what happened to their societies. Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ethiopia, etc.  They are all either stateless, in chaos, or already destroyed.

The record shows the US-backed regimes relinquished the power more easily to avoid more bloddbath, versus the Soviet sphere dictators that didn't quit in face of massive political unrests. Example, Asad has massacred hundreds of thousands...and counting.

There's only one reason that we can talk freely about the Constitution and its legal ramifications: Shah is dead.

You know Mehrban, as time goes by, I have more and more respect for those who initially participated in the Islamic Revolution, but then courageously came out and said that they made a mistake or they were too young and inexperienced, or they were influenced by the atmosphere around them, or high on drugs or just plain stupid, etc.

At some point, we Iranians of that generation need to look in the mirror and say, “you did this … yes, you!”

Excellent point dear Mehrban.

You said it all!

"The one who never made any mistake is the one who never did anything". As we say in Farsi:

"Unwritten essay doesn't have any mistake". 

   Any political figure in one way or the other make mistake. That doesn't mean to allow a bunch of stinky rag head to run the country.

  Dr. Bakhtiar (R.I.P) used to say that he didn't understand what people, who were marching against shah, wanted.

Dr. Bakhtiar said that they wanted shah leaves the country, so he left.

He said that they wanted the SAVAK to be disolved, so we disolved the SAVAK.

He said that they wanted all political prisoners to be released, so we released all political prisoners. NO political prisoner in Iran during Bakhtiar's time. He was rightly argued that if they wanted mullah took his place, he didn't agree because he felt comfortable in his place. He correctly saw that  Mullahs belong to mosques and cemetaries, NOT in politic.  

Where were reformers who keep talking about reform these days ? 

Ba doorood bar Souri Khanoom and other dear friends in here. As Ex_Cop siad : "Hopefully we learn from our mistake and try not to happen again"

Thanks dear Siavash.
I'm glad to see you back to the thread.
As you talked about Bakhtiar (I liked him very much) I like to tell you an anecdote that I heard after the revolution, from someone so close to Ghareh-baaghi that you can consider it as Ghareh-baaghi, himself. Unfortunately I can't reavel his relation to Ghareh-baaghi, but you can think of him as "his best friend of all time"
He said (from what Ghareh-baaghi told him) that when he went to announce the news of the Army's neutrality, Bakhtiar got so mad that he threw his dish at him (he was at his his lunch time) and screamed: Why you did this without letting me know? If I knew you will do this, I would do a coup d'etat, myself !!
Here, Ghareh-baaghi admitted that he got the order directly from Shah (who was living abroad) and without Bakhtiar knwoing it!!
Now, I know some people come right after me to mock and say that it is not true. But you can believe this is the exact story that I heard from that man who was Ghareh-baagi's closest friend.

Souri Khanoom,

Unlike blood thirty Islamic criminals, our shahanshah was a very peaceful, well mannered and kind hearted gentleman. He didn't like bloodshed. He cared a lot about his own people. He didn't want any Iranian get hurt. That's why he left the country back in 1953  as well. He said that he didn't want bloodshed.

Imagine, If the islamic criminals were in power in 1953, they would have killed million, million Iranian just to stay in power and they didn't want to leave. That is a fact.  

About 1979 and shah decision of army neutrality, I have to say,  most likely shah felt neurality of army would have eased off the bloodshed and ongoing social turmoil.

Please remember violence breed violence and peace breed peace. 

I admire Dr. Bakhtiar because he never gave up his battle against Islamic criminals who unlwafully took power in Iran. He put his life in combat with criminal mullahs. He was a real patriotic man.

Whenever I am around Montparnasse Cemetery in city of Paris, I go to his grave site and leave flowers on his tombstone.  

Dear Mehrban,

I am glad that you did not participate in that whatever. My point is that we should recognize that the first step to recovery is accepting responsibility and not to blame others.

Siavash aziz
I hope we won't get in round discussion like the last time :)
I always love to discuss these matters with you
You said: "our shahanshah was a very peaceful, well mannered and kind hearted gentleman. He didn't like bloodshed."....
I don't know/knew him personally, but would accept what you just said, only if this decision was his own and not been dictated to him by the "greatest powers", which unfortunately we have to admit that it was!
Somone said in this thread, that we (the guilty ones :) ) think that he was a puppet of America. Unfortunately, yes, we think so.
About Bakhtiar, I agree with all you said. He was so great, wise and knowledgable, much above all the Shah's politic-mens .
Yet again, this was the Shah's own fault that he always restricted Bakhtiar and pushed him away !
To be honest, at that time, I hadn't even heard the name of Bakhtiar, until he became the primary minister. It was then only that my late father said: He should do it much before that things get out of hand like this.
Shah always considered Bakhtiar as his enemy.....
I admit it, maybe Bakhtiar was not Shah's friend, but for sure he was Iran's best friend.
Now, this time, you would say with me that Shah did a big mistake in not recognizing his best interests and didn't chose his allies and his friend in the best way.
Was he very intelligent and smart? I think he was. But he was also too proud and full of himself. Too sure of his power and his popularity among his people.
Again, I repeat, May his soul rests in peace. He is dead now.
We can't judge him.
But history, will do.

"....I would accept what you just said, only if this decision was his own and not been dictated to him by the "greatest powers", which unfortunately we have to admit that it was!"

                      Souri Khanoom

That sounds like a Dai Jan Naplean Souri Khanoom.

That kind of mentality about western world as "giving order" to the leaders of other countries initiated primarily by "Lefts" during cold war era and consequenlty it was reinforced by Mullahs among Iranians. For example, Italy has more U.S military bases than any other countries in the Europe or in the M.E, but Italians never think they were "Puppet of America". Just ask any Italians about their feeling toward America, you'll see how much those people love America. It never come across Italians' minds that they were puppet of American. I am sure Italians will laugh if some Jihadists tell them they're puppet of America and they didn't know it.

On contrary, if you tell Syrians that they would be puppet of America, if U.S build U.S army base in their country. Most likely they accept your claim. They will try their best NOT to allow that happens.  That is the reason Italy is Italy and Syria is Syria. One enjoy the life at the most and the other ones are suffering all their lives. 

When we take a side in politic, it is NOT about specific individual. It is threat or rather it is a "Line of thinking". We take side with line of thining which has nothing to do with specific person.  General speaking,  People follow certain "line of thinking". Some follows the west as a "role model" and some chose the East or socialims as a saver or better way of living. 

During revolution, I was a high school kid. As a curiocity I was attending all the political meetings. From Fadaeyan all the way to MEK and Tudeh and J.M and sometimes I was attending private meeting of intellectual liberals such as Mostafa Rahimi.

In 1980's I graduated from high school and I had a lot of free time on my hand to learn about world of politic.

One day, I attended meeting whom Kianouri was discussing about cold war. He was saying that they never said shah was a puppet of the west,  similarly they were NOT a puppet of Russia.

"Free world is connected to each other as much as Eastern blocks were connect to eath other". Therefore, the victory of their comrades in Vietnam and Chili would be their victory and the defeat of their comrades in Vietname and Chili would be their defeat.(internationalism communism).  In other word, friends indeed are friend in need.

At the end, I have to say whatever happened in those days, it had been happened with GOOD FAITH. It was intended to save Iranians from bloody hands of criminal mullahs. Unfortunately, it was NOT successful.  

@Siavash, thanks for your blog. I agree with you, especially when you write:

"That kind of mentality about western world as "giving order" to the leaders of other countries initiated primarily by "Lefts" during cold war era"

Of course, the funny thing about that is that the Tudeh party actually did follow the Kremlin's line very, very faithfully (as did the vast majority of Communist parties).

You're welcome Amir jan,

During cold war era, anyone who was pro west was labled as "puppet" and anyone who was pro East, they were "National hero". Lol. 

Therefore, Kamal Ataturk, President Sadat, Reza shah...... etc ..who believed in modernization their countries like European countries, they were all "puppets" and criminals and murderers such as Pol pot ...Mao... Ho chi minh...Fidlel Castro...Gaddafi....etc... were all "National hero".

Do you see the power of propaganda ?  

That was cold war mentality which faded away once Soviet Union collepsed, but ruling criminal mullahs in Iran are still using it because it benefits them to stay in power. 

Dear Siavash, I could not agree more! Great blog and keep up the good work!

Rozbeh_Gilani,

You give too much credit to the religion. I am sure even after collepse of criminal mullahs from power, Shia Islam remains as a main religion in Iran as it was before.

What you see is a politcal matter. It has nothing to do with people's believe system. People's believe system had been structured for many centuries. To fight people's believe system doesn't help anything. It makes the situation worsen. There are so many Hajis who are still going to Haj, but they hate Islamic gang who occupied Iran's government and parliament. Just think about it. 

Mosaddegh also frequently made appeals to religion. In addition, it was during his premiership that Khalil Tahmassebi (assassin of Razmara, from Fadaiyan-e Eslam was released). Before falling out with each other, Ayatollah Kashani was his ally. Mehdi Bazargan and Taleghani were also allies of Mosaddegh, and Bazargan helped pave the way for "Emam" (lol). Bazargan and Taleghani (along with scumbags Ali Shariati & Mostafa Chamran and Imam Musa Sadr, helped found the Iran Freedom Movement -- so much for the "secular democratic opposition" to the Shah).

Siavash jaan

There are too many points in your few comments above that I have to explore and talk about. I have no time.... and you won't have the patience, either.

You last comment is not true at all.

The one that starts with : during the cold war era.....
The fact is that those leaders who believed in the modernization in a Western way, they needed and were getting help from the West (mostly America)
Same goes for their counter parts which you have mentioned here as the pro-Soviet...
You said it yourself: COLD WAR! The word is:WAR.
There was a war between two poles in the world and each one tried to get more allies, which is understandable.
Now, coming to the word "puppet" and what Kianoury said about that:
I don't know in what context he said that, but no matter what, I don't agree with him.
Please do pay attention to the fact that this word is used as a metaphore, and not in its litteral meaning.
When we say that Shah was a puppet, it doesn't mean that he was an "agent" of America that they have put in Iran to save their interests.
No.
This means that Shah needed the financial help of America (during the 50's or the end of 40 ?) so he asked for a loan (remember that?)
When America invests in a country, it is not for the blue eyes of its people, they need something. Iran was a very important country in the region, especially because of the neighbor!
So, yes, the American helped Shah to stay in power. I hope you won't deny what Barak Obama said not long ago about the Coup of 1953?
The whole Iranian military system was made by the American..... and so goes on (I don't want to enumerate all the facts)
Now, when a person or a country has all the power on you, they have you in their hand!
We are all the grown up persons of the 21st centuray. We have seen enough movie and read enough documentaries about how the politics goes and what means the CIA, Intelligent service..... etc.
So when I say that Shah has been forced to quit the country and has been forced to order the neutrality of the Army...... You know well what I am talking about.
While this is very  nice to flirt with the romatnic tales about this and that leader who might make us proud of our nationality, but the truth is really somewhere else.
Thanks for your time and your input.
 

The revolution is often referred to as "stolen" by this government. The only thing that the Shi'ite leadership stole was the term "US puppet" from the left. And that was coined for the first time by Hezb Tudeh and propagated by their splinters including Fadayee movement throughout the society.

When you ask them about the Soviet puppets as I did above, they are always uncommunicative. Because, Iran is not their only byproduct. Syria, Lybia, Iraq, Ethipia, and many others are their miscreants.

How silly! No one said that the US backed the Shah for unselfish reasons. Of course, they backed the Shah for their own interests! The point is that countries in the US camp (eg Iran, Turkey, Jordan, West Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, etc) were relatively better off both economically and politically than those in the opposing camp (Iraq, Syria, Libya, East Germany, North Korea, etc)

Dear GR

Thanks for your input. Yes, we don't know what to believe these days :

Mehrban always triggers a good discussion. It must be in the name! I was worried that it'd get out of hand but it seems it’s going well so far. So here it is few things about the Shah and the army..
A king is defined by its army. It's inconceivable to imagine a kingdom in which the army has not sworn allegiance to its king. This was what prompted me to ask Mehrban to elaborate. In fact, if this understanding was attributed to another constitution of another kingdom, it would have puzzled me all the same.
In our constitution [albeit deeply dysfunction legal document!], the article 50 acknowledges this. Now depending the level of development of a society, the role of the king may vary from hands-on supervision to a symbolic presence. In a kingdom, this doesn't depend much to the terms of the constitution per se, but to the maturity of the society and its interaction with the power structure. Interestingly enough, this also is vaguely mentioned in the articles 104 to 107 at the end of the document which seems to be an afterthought and mostly with [then] presence of  Russian and British forces in mind.
I don't recall the source but I read somewhere that when Reza Shah was about to be exiled by the British, he had only one advice to his son. He told him “no matter what they decide to do, don't let them never ever to loose your control over the army”.
Mohammad Reza Shah proudly followed the advice of his father and built-up an army that was solely conceived for protecting the country and to keep it in one piece. It did not have even a single urban type anti-riot vehicle for fighting against its own people. Even police which normally think about that kind logistics, didn’t have any! This is what that army and its Bozorg Arteshtaran was all about.
In US state department documents during Razmara (not those that I translated but in the same package) it is recorded that when US asked the Shah if he considered Razmara as his prime minister, the Shah noted that he cannot be both an army officer and a prime minister. ‘If I choose him, he will come out of the military and will act as a civilian’.
Another side note: As we know, Reza Shah at first was intrigued by a ‘republic’ preposition until he was offered the kingdom. This is an interesting story. It seems to me that for Reza Shah, the idea of ‘republic’ only meant the end of supremacy of Qajar king over his army. I don’t think he had any other understanding of how else a ‘republic’ would differ from a monarchy. He simply wanted complete control over his army. I suppose that based on the social class that he was coming from,  it didn’t occur to him that he could have any claim to the throne. Once he was offered the throne, the true [class] revolution started!

Amir1973

You got lost in translation!
The subject was not US Vs Soviet game... how many goals and how many penalties ?
The subject of this discussion is: Was Shah an independent leader or not?
I say tha he was not and he could not be as independent as Siavash says. None of the leaders of the region is independent, in fact. They all need the support of one of the biggest powers in the world.
Nowadays, it's even worse than then. No leader of the world can perform independently (but the North korean maybe?  :)  
Even the president of the USA can not perform independently... but he has the chance to be ruled by the cartels and trusts which are based in the very same country, so this can be covered up and  hidden from us.

Shah was a dictator... a reluctant dictator... a timid, but not peaceful, reluctant dictator...a timid reluctant dictator who spent the majority of his life licking his psychological wound caused first by the overwhelmingly giant shadow of his father and then by what Mosaddeq's popular movement did to him...Shah was emotionally very insecure and psychologically highly unstable. His strange behavior during the last decade or so of his life is true witness to what we can now strongly suggest that he was suffering from some sorta schizophrenia...To those of us who insist to blame his downfall on a concoction of ill-minded agents of treason from the leftest corridor of KGB, to rightest corner of Guadeloupe, I only say this: No one, absolutely no one harmed His Majesty but Himself...He unaided carried out the destruction of his integrity and then unassisted uprooted our sacred, ancient, national tradition of monarchy...Forever. 

Dear Minimalist

While I agree with parts of your comment about Shah and the reasons of his fall, but I insist again on the fact that he did not get the needed and supposed help from his greatest alley ( The United States of America)

Not this time.

Thanks dear GR

I agree with you.

At the end, America's reluctance to push Shah for further crackdown on the revolution as well as Shah's decision to leave were both benign. 

Related to benross's comment: I believe that, even in democratic Great Britain, the armed forces swear allegiance to Her Majesty?

Yes Amir, they do and not only the army. It is called 'Oath of Allegiance'.

GR, it's called Psychobabble aka gibberish aka darivari aka chert-o-pert. It was the special area of study of Mini and all his many user IDs during his term at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow.

Yes as I said how it is implemented depends on the maturity of the society and its interaction with the power structure. But if George VI wanted to take over, he could! He was the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces.

Here we are talking about a backwarded country that Reza Shah built with his army. The same army infrastructure that his son deployed for the white revolution.

Not at all. Now we are delving into hypothetical suppositions outside of common sense and social wisdom of Britannia. It is an absurdity but it was all in his right to take over the army if he chose to do so. Mind you that Britannia doesn't even have a 'constitution' per se. All democratic rights of the subjects of his majesty are granted by royal decrees. So if he dessolved the parliament and the government etc. then you could say the king was acting as an Absolute Monarch but not regarding the army.

We should not look only at the ruler. We should always look at who he is ruling too.

For God sake souri khanoom please use a little common sense.

America forced shah to neutralize army for what ? Because shah and U.S both wanted a bunch of the rag heads, who hate western values and western system, take over the country.

U.S and shah didn't like monarchy so they helped revolutionary people to take upper hand by neutralizing the army. Furthermore,  U.S didn't want the closest ally in the region (shah) to be in power, instead they wanted their enemy (Islamic fundamentalism and terrorists)  to take over the region. At the end U.S were enjoying to see their citizens to be taken hostages by Islamic fundamentalists. That's why they helped Khomaini to reach power and they didn't help shah to stay in power.

 As a result, we can say Shah and U.S both were enemies of the Iran and Iranian people. lol... 

Do you see how rediculous it sounds ?

Thanks Amir for his input. That was exactly what I was trying to say. 

Siavash jaan, I don't need to use commen sense when I have facts!

To be honest, I am no more interested to these questions of "who was Shah really" and/or "why the revolution happened"..... etc. I think these are completely outdated questions and we have to move on.

Now, I just say what facts I am talking about and I'll move from here. No more interest to prove some points  to the people who love to stay in a estate of denial and take the matter of politics in a level of "first degree".

Fact 1) Farah said in her memories and Carter recently admitted that he told Shah to leave the country. ( I, did not invent it, this is a fact!!)
Fact 2) Carter (America) was sending financial help to Khomeini since he was still in Iraq.

Now, the questions that I may ask myself (not to you, of course) are the following:

1- Why should Carter be in a position to tell Shah to quit his country in such situation?

2-  Why should Shah accept to do what Carter tell (or suggest?) him to do?

3- In the case if Shah would not have been so nice and gentleman as you say (just in case) and he wanted to save his throne by fighting the people, how could he stay in power afterward, while he knew that America was supporting his enemy?

Good day, Siavash jaan.
As I said I am no more intrested in this subject, I find it too much going round in circle.

But I like you :)

Siavash jaan, how much "common sense" and "facts" (lol) can an individual have in their empty skull if in the year 2016 they are still a Communist or Marxist or Marxist-Leninist or Khatt-e Tudeh or whatever name they give their garbage ideology? These people will NEVER learn. Ever. Period.

What's the proper adjective to describe those of us who can't digest the fact about the rise of the " left, the true left, not the safety valve left" in the this very century in as unexpected lands as the US?... Mentally constipated, maybe...

@Minimalist: there's more than one proper word. However, I will remain content to call your ilk "morons".

If it were the old, the original iraniandotcom some of our friends, instead of eulogizing an irrelevant dead dictator, would have written on the vibrant subject of the giant leap from Nader to Sanders. Haif :(

Here's the problem with us Iranians: we think too much of our people. We act as if the Iranian society is like Sweden, where they believe in a liberal democracy. The reality is that Iran is just another Third World, religious, backward, Middle Eastern society that still suffers from the infection with the Islamic virus (scientific name: Arabopedophilawillbeheadyou-I , abbreviated as APWBY-I). That kind of culture constantly craves a strongman to rule them, and believes that religion should have an answer for everything. You put those two together and you get the Velayat Faghih, which is what we have now, and what we will have for at least the next two or three generations.

Unfortunately, I wasn't around during Shah's time. But all indications are that he was a very weak dictator. Perhaps a little two weak for the country and people he ruled. He didn't understand the Iranian mentality like the mullahs did. So, everything he did was half-ass when it came to keeping himself in power. That's why viruses like the Toudeh, MEK, Cherik-Fadaii, Jebhe-melli, mullahs, Palestine worshippers, and other microbes thrived under him. And they're still around to pollute the cyberspace. Seriously, if Shah was so bad, why is Comrade Minimalist still here, breathing and wasting the planet's precious oxygen? I would even go as far to say that Shah's time was the most politically permissive atmosphere in Iran's history. After all, all these traitors and psychopaths, from Khamenei, to Bazargan, to Rafsanjani, to Kianoori, etc. were all living in Iran.

Shah executed fewer than 400 people in Iran during his 37 year reign, and that included murderers, rapist, etc. Khomeini executed that many during his lunch break on his first day back in Iran. Honestly, that's what the Iranian people wanted, got and deserved.

Dear AO, I second that motion. Iran has been damaged goods for 1400 years and is beyond redemption for the foreseeable future. Let's just say that the future of the country is not very bright. 

Dear AO,

I have a gift for you, too. It's a little on the mean side, but all too true:

http://takimag.com/article/the_turd_world_gavin_mcinnes/print#axzz4FoUjhnKD

Okay guys, I said that I don't want to talk about Shah anymore, but I give myself the right to come back and say what I want on other subjects :)

On AO's comment:

1) Pedophily is not the monopoli of Islam. We all know it right now with all the information about how the priests do performs in all the churches in all the countries!

2) Beheading (means killing) , is also not the monopoli of Islam. It has been also practiced in the time of anquisition by the catolic churches. Now of course, they don't do it anymore but hay ..... Islam came 600  years after the Christianism. This is a process, give them time.

3) To have a good understanding of what is happening now (or happened then) in Iran, we must try to get a universal vision. I always repeat this but no one wants to listen:

 To analyse a phenomena, a situation or anything, we have to go from "Global to Details" and not the other way.

Instead of focusing on just Iran and look and find the root of its problem in Islam, we must look at the whole univers and how it is turning globally.

For sure, today all the problems of the world seem to come from Islam and its theory, because this is what the media want us to believe.

For decades, the whole problem was Marxism and Communism. They were the enemy of the world.

You think that the whole problem of Iran and region comes from Islam?

Think about the Latin America and how they are fighting for decades to obtain freedom and financial independance (No Islam there)

Think about African countries just where they are not Muslim, of course, like South Africa..... and their battles.

Think about Inida and its long term battle against England.... And so goes on.....

The answer is simple!

It's just a power struggle between the strongers and the weakers countries.

No matter how we cut and paste these troubles and who and what we want to point to as "the real  cause"..... It is just a power game.

All the other things like, religion or race or theory.....etc that we like to introduce as the real "Causes" are just the means. Nothing else.  

Marxism 1.0: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. 

Marxism 2.0: The answer is simple!

It's just a power struggle between the strongers and the weakers countries.

Good one Amir1973!

For once you got the exact point! You are not getting lost like always :)

Yes, this is it!

Souri khanom, your deranged Commie rants are more effective in inducing sleep than Ambien 10 mg

So good! Then use em dear Amir1973. You need it more than anyone here.

How witty! How erudite! Another graduate of Patrice Lumumba University, perhaps?

Knowing that she lives in French Canada, and being a hopeless ESLer myself, I find Suri's brave attempt at English a genuine source of inspiration  .. On the subject of class struggle, in today's global economy, the conflict between  the have countries and the have not societies is the true manifestation of " class struggle". Isn't it?

Amir1973:

Exactly! And this is there where I learned about the Lumpenism and the Lumpens like you people, who come to a serious blog  and mess up with it, by joking and mocking and insulting others, because they have nothing rational to say!

This  blog is for serious and educated people, not the hyperactive kids with an A.D.D problem like you.

Take your Ambian 10 mg and go to sleep.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lumpen

Look who is talking: learn some manners, as old and "wise" (lol) as you are.

Another Communist scumbag with no intelligence, no manners, and no common sense.

Take your decrepit corpse and leave! What utter trash!

Thank you dear Minimalist. I wish we had more intelligent persons like you, in this site.

Any time...and worry you not... I have no respect for those who write exclusively in English, not an iota of respect or sympathy. I find them so foreign and uselessly irrelevant. That's all...

For Souri Khanoom:

SAINT FRANCOIS, Guadeloupe--The crisis in Iran was the main topic of discussion as President Carter, British Prime Minister James Callaghan, French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt gathered yesterday on the Caribbean island for a two-day summit conference. 

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security advisor, said yesterday Carter would reiterate his support for Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who has the support of the other three leaders as well.

Source:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/1/5/summit-in-guadeloupe-psaint-francois-guadeloupe-the/

Souri khanoom please provide link for your fact # 2

Thanks

Thanks Souri khanoom for expressing kindness toward this writer, but please provide proof for any claim in political/historical matter. 

Wish you a happy day as well. 

"...I have no respect for those who write exclusively in English"

Dear Siavash

No, sorry. I am not looking to provide any proof, because in any cases, it will be rejected and denied, as here in this site, nobody is looking for the truth.

You guys are all the fact-finders of the internet, you read everything and know everything about that subjects, but you guys like to turning around the bush and get your way out of it.

The facts that I talked about have been discussed here, in this same site, not so long ago. It was first even evocked by one of the Shah-doust comrades like yourself.

I will stop here.

Thanks

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=825

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.ca/2011/11/rigged-revolution-how-shadow-cia-mi6.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution

and many many other links..... but of course, you know them all

For Souri khanoom from the link she posted above:

"The Iranian Islamic Regime and the American Totalitarian Fascist Regime are mutually dependent on each other to preserve power and justify their totalitarian systems of government."

AMERICAN FASCIST REGIME ?!!!

"the American government slaughtered its own people on September 11, 2001 to help launch a global war. "

So it was U.S , NOT Bin Laden and Arabs from Egypt or Saudi , who killed over 4000 U.S citizen in 9/11

Souri khanoom, do you really believe in these garbage? 

Don't you think you can use your time more productive than spending on reading these garbages ? 

This is just one of them. How about the others? the one from TheGuardian for example

I just posted here a random result of the search engine....

As I said, you know better than me

PS- Why you never address GR, while he is trying to make a point here since the beggining? I am surprised

GR,

During cold war, Eastern and Western blocks used their ultimate weapons to defeat one another. For example, Soviet was defeated in Chili (1973)  but they prevailed in Vietname (1975).

 U.S was financing Mojaheddin in Pakistan and border of Afghanistan to kick Russians out of Afghanistan during 1980's and 90's.

I wouldn't be surprise they even were thinking to make an artificial 12 Imam to defeat atheism Soviet union in those days.

That is nothing new. They used any weapon they could hands on to prevail the hegemoney of the world. 

Dear Souri khanoom,

I just responded GR.

Sometimes it takes time I come back on my computer. Luckily I am off these days. otherwise, I wouldn't be able to come to computer at all. 

Anyway, you have to know the differnces between historical fact and the opinion of Mansoor or people like him.

 These are ordinary people who sleep at night and once they wake up next day they maki up stories. Sometimes they have bad feeling about certain country due to fight with husband,  spouse. Sometimes they have  hormonal problem, or sometimes they have  psychiatric illnesses such as the one we saw in Dai jan Naplean T.V serials. Sometimes it is amuzing stories and good source of entertainment, but you have to be able to discern between the power of imagination and historical facts. You're well educated lady who spend most of your time in Western society.  I expect you to pinpoint the garbages once you see it. 

"Does that mean they would even remove "their closest ally" in the region?"

      GR

Not necessary.

Common sense says that they would do it if there is better future for them. yes, if the new administration in Iran benefited U.S  more than shah administration. 

There were no better bright future for U.S if shah was going to toppled. No benefits at all.

If they had any problem with Soviet or neighbore countries, U.S could simply  ask shah and shah would have done it for them. No need to support a bunch of the fanatic stinky rag heads in case in future they might be more useful than shah. If they were such a mindset, that would have shown very poor judgement on U.S part. Very poor judgment. But that was not the case.

They didn't have any problem with shah or Iranians. Nixon referred to shah as his "Good friend". He even attended his burial ceremony. Western world loved shah. Shah was a peaceful person who  had a good relationship with any country on the face of the earth. 

Siavash
The financial help from Carter to Khomeini, once for 500,000 when Khomeini was in Iraq and then 700,000 while he was in France, has been out and talked about a few months ago. I heard it even at Persian TV (which of course is not always a reliable source but, they said they have read it too)
The guys in the site, have talked about this too. I don't remember who was who said it first.
But now I don't find that link.
I posted some other links related to Carter's position regarding Shah and Khomeini, and you like to deny them all.
So I am asking myself again: Would I have found that link, was it really of any importance to you?
No matter what, we all stand always on our previous position.
But thanks forn your civilized manner.

Yes, please do so. Post the link. Probably there is something that I am not aware of it. 

GR,

"Like prices of other commodities the price of crude oil experiences wide price swings in times of shortage or oversupply.  The crude oil price cycle may extend over several years responding to changes in demand as well as OPEC and non-OPEC supply. We will discuss the impact of geopolitical events, supply demand and stocks as well as NYMEX trading and the economy."

Source:

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

We were talking about U.S NOT Brits. Right ? I love to know about the video that shah said some kind of conspiracy. Please post the video.

Thanks,

Dear AO

I have to agree with you. Shah was too kind hearted and too principled to be the type of dictator to which Iran was used.

Thanks for a good blog Siavash. He surely made us pround.

Dear GR

I don't know if this is the same video but here we hear Shah saying that.... min 27:35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzoL27p4KG8

Divaneh,

Thanks for your kind words. 

GR:

No one denied that BBC radio Farsi section was anti shah during revolution. Furthermore, we know that some Iranian students who were taking scholorship from Shahanshahi government and at the same time they were opposed with shah used to work in that radio station. 

The question is how much these Iranian students were truely representing British government policy ? None of them were Brits, all of them were Iranians.

Back in 1970's, To be anti shah was something fashionable. It was sign of being "Intellectual". Sitting in the cafreteria and speaking against shah was getting a lots of attention from the audiances. 

Anyway, When shah is talking about money, he was referring to terrorist groups of Palestinians or terrorists who were fed financially by people such as  Gaddaf, or Fidel Castroi in those days.In mid 70's SAVAK raided many of these terrorists group and they found Lybian money in there. The news was a big blow in those days.  In fact the interviewer even mention the name of Gaddafi in his interview. Please watch it closely.  I am surprised you misunderstand the whole concept of the interviw.

  Now, have you ever heard someone by the name of Haji Araghi ?.

He was a Bazari millionar who spent million million dollars for Khomani to gain power. He was assacinated shortly after revoution. Khomaini praised him after his assecination saying that Mr. Araghi didn't deserve to die in bed. He deserved to be martyred In other word, Myrtyrdom was something he deserved and not dying ill in his bed. 

In addition, when interviewer asked shah if there was something U.S or Brits could do to prevent Khomaini gain power and the shah responded NOT after few months in earrly 1978. Yes, the whole system were collepsed in early 1978. Long before Shahrivar 17, 1978. After black friday in Jaleh square,( shahryvar 17)  there were no way of return. Everybody knew that. What you see in Guadelupe conference in Dec. 1978 was the result of disconection between shah and his people.

 Please allow me to use this metaphore.

First comes horse, then carriage follow. Not the other way around. First it was a revolution , then it came all those solution, approaches to new estalblishment. Foreign powers felt that the system is dead in early 1978 so they decided to deal with new upcoming power. They didn't cause it, they were carriage who were following the horse.  Conspiriacy theory have a tendency to put the carriage in the front of the horse and it won't work. 

Souri Khanoom, please read this comment because it also clear your dilema of "Giving order". In addition, Please watch the video carefully. Shah used the word "Advise", NOT order. Yes, Advise.

You may wondering what Why U.S provided "Advise".?

that goes back to  the discussion that Amir1973 mentioned in the above and I summurized it in here as follow:

FRIENDS INDEED ARE FRIENDS IN NEED

Wow!!

Actually Siavash, I just came back from a party and looked here.....

All this look so much fun right now :)

Thanks for your attention.

I'd just say that if America had ordered Shah to leave, do you really think that Shah would use the word "order" to describe it? Don't you think that he would say rather "The Amercia advised me"?

Now, I'm not saying what you say is not true. I say: I don't know.

You seem to stick to a theory which please you (like all other pro-Shahi in here)

And to be honest, I don't mind this.

Take care

Dear Siavash, I was always against conspiracy theorists, not because they were factually wrong [I never did the research to know that] but because to me, it is a conceptually wrong direction to take. It is demeaning to Iranian people in general, by considering them as the mere pawns in the hands of the 'big planners', and as a consequence, it justifies -directly or indirectly- their lack of responsibility. Iranians don't take responsibility for their actions and they always blame someone or something else for the actions that nobody else took but themselves. Taking the responsibility of our actions should be the centre piece of our political thinking to improve the sense of citizenship.

Having said that, we should not dismiss malicious intent of some countries so easily. 'How these elements came together at the same time?' this is the question the late Shah put forward in the referred video segment presented by GR.

Recently Mas'ood Behnood had a speech [in a NIAC gathering of some sort I guess] remembering a scene in a restaurant in Tehran which was the hang-out of unofficial political and diplomatic meetings in those days. And he described an unusual level of activities by foreign diplomats and political activists. And he concluded that he -now- thinks that the role of foreign powers in the events that followed was more that what he thought then.

Speaking of Behnood (!), regarding the British role in BBC broadcasting, I think you downplay it a bit too much. This is the same BBC radio that general Charles de Gaulle used to organize the French resistance. Suggesting that British intelligence or British government had nothing to do with what 'a bunch of fashionably lefty students' were doing there, is a little bit far fetched.

I recall in my last year of high-school, the flimsy shortwave radio station that was broadcasting the voice of dissidence [from Iraq it seems] had its best hour of broadcast [least parasite and scrambling effects] in a certain hour of a certain day of the week which was coinciding with the one and only hour of the week for one of my high-school class courses... in that year I never saw the face of that particular teacher. Not even once! So you could consider me more than qualified to talk about those 'fashionable lefties' in the BBC!

There is no arguing that -as crudely as we understood it- the fact remains that there was no political freedom during the late Shah governance and the voice of dissidance was very appealing to my generation in particular, and the people in general. Albeit I was on the extreme side of it! In such context that a flimsy shortwave radio broadcast from nowhere could have such appealing effect on me and many others, don't you think that the British intelligence and its government -and in particular, those fashionable lefties- didn't know what effect it would have if it was broadcasted from the BBC? This was not a mere 'technical' issue that it made it available to a far larger population, it also contained this clear message that it is okay, the western powers gave the green light to support the voice of dissidence.

A side-note: The Shah and his prime minister Hoveyda had interviews many many times, arguing how the Iranian society is not ripe for a western style democracy. But none of them was in Persian. This was one of their biggest mistakes. If they carried out the same argument in Persian and put it forward for a social discussion in Iran, arguably it could have some positive impact. Not a guaranteed one, but it could at least create a channel of communication with the new urban middle class. There was a lot of voice of dissidence in outside of Iran frontiers. But the exposure of this dissidence IN PERSIAN was always tightly curtailed. That's why the BBC intervention was a very very big deal in those days.

"...if America had ordered Shah to leave, do you really think that Shah would use the word "order" to describe it?"

                                    Souri Khanoom

There is an expression that says:

"If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose".

Yes Souri khanoom,  if it was an order shah would have said so. He even said once in his palace interview in Tehran that superpower bully some smaller countries. Of course he was referring to former Soviet Union.

Shah said that strong country "BULLY" smaller countries. He said when he was on power,  not in exile.

Now common sense says when he was no longer in charge and won't lose anything he could say it freely. 

BTW,

I stick with whatever make sense, not something that doesn' make any sense  like 9/11 mastermind by U.S , NOT Bin Laden and U.S killed innocent Bin Laden who had nothing to do with 9/11. 

I read the article you posted very carefully to get someting out of it, but it was just none sense and I think you didn't read it throughly before you posted the link. 

GR:

I watched the minutes you mentioned again. The interviewer was desperately trying to see if shah condemn the west for losing the power, but he was NOT able to get it as you or Souri Khanoom clearly mentioned in the above.

Shah conceptualize that there were some support, but he didn't specifies exactly from the west. He refer to those people who were around Khomaini such as Yazdi and Ghotbzadeh. General Iranian rumors were saying about agent of KGB or CIA. lol...

Shah was saying that first they said Ghotbzadeh was KGB agent then they said he was CIA agent. Anyway, Ghotbzadeh stood in the front of firing squad in Evin prison and never confessed to be an agent of any foreign power. I remember that Ghotbzadeh clearly said on T.V that they wanted to bomb Khomaini's house and overthrown mullahs regime. The group was called (N.I.M.A) and they were all executed including Ghobzadeh.  

GR:

please remember the metaphore of horse and carriage I mentioned in the above. When you're listening to the videos, please remember what part of revolution they were referring to. Were they referring to revolution or  "horse" or they were talking about aftermath "Carriage".

After the foreign powers felt there wouldn't be any hope for future monarchy in Iran, They changed their attitudes toward shah.

Even Queen Farah mentioned several times in her interviews that attitude of their old friend changed because they were no longer in charge.

 In early 1978, everybody including foreign powers felt the shah is no longer in charge and they had to make a friend with upcoming establishment for their own benefits. That attitude came afterward, NOT before revolution. Carriage follow the horse, NOT the other way around.

Benrose,

Thanks for informative write up. Yes, that is the problem we Iranian have. We always blame others for our wrong doing and never wanted to accept responsiblity. We learned it since our childhood time. I don't remember any children break something and confess that they broke it. that they are sorry for it.  Always deny.  Consipiracy theory matches to our mentality. 

As far as those "Left students" in London, I knew some of them. People were listening to BBC Farsi radio all the time in those days. I remember the sound of radio in my neighborhood was very loud in the ally.

BBC was saying there would be a demonstration on Friday at Taj Blvd and everybody was showing up to see the demonstration against shah. Eventually Tehran state radio start to propagate against BBC. I remember the lady speaker was saying BBC is acting as a magician and appears every corner of Tehran's streets and report demonstration against shah. 

The question is how much those Iranian students resided in London was representing British foreign policy ?

Did they get their pre-writen manscript from MI6 or some other spy agency or they were acting on their own because of their disapproval of shah. ?

I guess they were doing on their own and it had nothing to do with British official government agenda. I may be wrong, but my common sense is saying that.  

It is obviously very convinient and, especially these days, intellectualistically very fashionable among Iranians, to dismiss any claims that to one's mind could be labled conspiracy theory just because they have not understood or researched the supporting facts behind them. One thing that often Iranians (especially educated ones) have fallen for it for a long time, are shiny and lustrous words coming out of western medias which have long been under control of different governments intelligence agencies for obvious reasons. Manipulation of masses and governments into creation of different situations in any population is nothing new and has a very long tradition especially among western governments and rullers. These days, there is even a program in some educational institutions that teach how to "stage a revolution". Here is the course description:

"Course Description This course explores fundamental questions about the causes and nature of revolutions by looking at how people overthrow their rulers and establish new governments. Considers a set of major political transformations throughout the world and across centuries to understand the meaning of revolution and evaluate its impact. Examines how revolutionaries have attempted to establish their ideals and realize their goals. Asks whether radical upheavals require bloodshed, violence, or even terror. Seeks to explain why some revolutions succeed and others fail. Materials include the writings of revolutionaries, declarations and constitutions, music, films, art, novels, memoirs, and newspapers."  

If we want to think that western civilization has been established and florished based on fiendship and nobility towards others with the intent of helping humanity to progress and thrive then it is not their fault that every time we fall for their agenda and get inspired by their propaganda to our demise. One thing that we could have learnt from westerners but unfortunately there is no sign that we have yet, is to investigate matters that relate to our collective or even personal vital interests thoroughly before making our minds based on materials presented by this or that scholar or researcher because there is always possibilty of error and misjudgment even by best of us, let alone those whose interests are linked with misleading us. Conspiracy is a fact of life in any human society and history is full of conspiracies in every corner of the world. If we naively ignore this fact then we should blame no one for our ignorance and our failure.

Late Shah of Iran, along with Iranian nation, were victims of undeniable international conspiracy to push Iran out of path of planned progress and prosperity. Iranian people, like any other people in the world, could be manipulated into acting the way they did in 1978-79, in the absense of wise leaderhip outside governing system and that in no way makes Iranian people less intelligent than any other people in the world. It is a fact that any populace in any part of the world, could not comprehend the political tricks and intelligence manipulations that is played on them quickly enough to catch up with political games. The damage has been done. Neither denying nor affirming it will change anything now but it is always good to keep an open mind towards different possibilites in order to avoid falling in the same traps.

Doust aziz Siavash
I just read part of your comment which was addressed to me and thought it is necessary to answer your thoughts. I still haven't read all the new comments today.
You don't seem to know the situation in which shah and family were in US, when they were living in Panama.
I suggest you read Farah's memories. Even today, this family can not express their true feeling or (the truth for that matters) freely. They had a very limited political freedom. It was very hard for them to obtain just the autorization for living in US. I know you won't like to hear that, but this is true! The United States was not so kind with them. So, for me, it makes sens if Shah didn't want to express himself freely about the authors of his defeat.

Another point, that I wanted to let go yesterday, but now decided to talk about, is your interpretation of what Shah wanted to say (but didn't say) :

" Anyway, When shah is talking about money, he was referring to terrorist groups of Palestinians or terrorists who were fed financially by people such as  Gaddaf, or Fidel Castroi in those days.In mid 70's SAVAK raided many of these terrorists group and they found Lybian money in there. The news was a big blow in those days.  In fact the interviewer even mention the name of Gaddafi in his interview. Please watch it closely.  I am surprised you misunderstand the whole concept of the interviw."

Wow!! Really my friend? You take a trip to Karbala to explain what exactly Shah wanted to say (while you are sure that if there was something, who would not fear to reveal the names!)
If I were you , I would listen to GR suggestion to watch the video in full and pay good attention to what Shah said.
Right before the subject of "financial aid to the opposition" shah  talked about "Ghareh baaghi" and especially "Fardoust" his long time friend and advisor, who were (in his opinion) still free in Iran.  
Please do read about both of them :

Fardoust:

Fardoust was one of the few generals in the Iranian military who did not flee the country or was arrested after the Bakhtiar regime collapsed. Immediately after the 1979 Revolution that overthrew the monarchy, it was rumoured Fardoust had "defected to the other side, handing over crucial files, and transformed SAVAK into SAVAMA" (Sazman-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Melli-e Iran), the new secret security organization of the Islamic Republic^[3] later renamed the Ministry of Intelligence.
In April 1987, Fardoust appeared in public for the first time in a television "interview" with Islamic authorities. He described and denounced the life of the Shah, his court, and the corruption and dependency of the government he had served in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Fardoust

And Gharhbaghi:

In his first book, Gharabaghi expresses his strong support and loyalty to the Shah and paints a detailed picture of the chaos within the military ranks caused by the last government under the Shah which clearly holds Prime Minister Bakhtiar responsible for the downfall of the monarchy.^[5] He justifies his decision to declare the army's "neutrality" as the only reasonable solution given the circumstances and in order to prevent further bloodshed and calls Bakhtiar a traitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Fardoust

Yes, when it comes to Politics, I would rather to stick more to a Dae jan Napoleon y doctrine than trust what the general media say.

Thanks GR for your impartial input.

Dear Mr Ferdows

I just read your comment.

You nailed it really good!

Thanks for sharing our thoughts with us.

What do you call a blog where the number of comments almost matches the number of visits?...An imperial circus where the royal horses go around and around...for the past almost four decades... :)

Dear Minimalist
This blogn was good. I liked all the interaction but some...
What is very interesting as a result, is that I have learned something that I was not aware of.
It seems that the older ones (our generation) have another opinion which I call it  more realistic (of course :) ) than the younger ones.
Here all the people of my age who have been witnessing the events of the revolution era, agree to some degree, that the revolution was inevitable and happened for a reason.
While the younger ones, who were too young at that time and who are getting all their information through the recent media and internet, want just to blame it to the "ignorant mass of people" and ..... the Toudeh, of course :)

This blog is the lowest of the low, which boasts about the "white privileges" bestowed upon some iroonis of all shades in South Africa...it's unbelievable how low and how uninformed these dinosaurs can remain in 21st century...I have no intention of physical or otherwise harm to them when I say, and I say it so honestly that I can't wait to see them dead. I mean it. 

Mini.... whatever.

I can assure you that I am much younger than you.

To your eyes , anything that is against filthy bare feet Arab desert is "lowest of the low"  because of your national origin. 

Let me give you some tips.

 We have an expression in Farsi. When someone is so stupid and ignorant, we we call them  "as Beekh Arab".

Just to let you know that is Iranian mentality, NOT me. I didn't create that expression. It is common practice among Iranians.  

Iranians see Arabs lower than themselves.

Is that ring the bell for you and your Arab buddies in South Africa apartheid ?

You guys were treated like a pieace a dirt. Your Arab buddies couldn't go anywhere after 6 p.m, while Iranians with shahanshahi passport were treated equal to European counterpart.

Didn't like it ?

Too bad. Deal with it. 

BTW,

Mini... 

I almost forgot to say that alwasy number of visitors on blogs that is related to our shahanshah (means our late king ) have had highest visitors and highest comments in favor of our shahanshah.

In one of my blogs, I have had over 19,000 visitors and the highest approval of the comment that said :"Khoda Biyamooz". Means God bless shah.  

Just ask Mr. Saeed Amin or Jahanshah, they will inform you. 

Dear Sohrab Ferdow,

Thanks for the long and informative comment. I always love to read from you.  I personally admire your knowlege and awareness of our history. Many Iranians, including me, have always admired the west for their technology and their advance way of lifestyle. I have come across many Iranian families who take a pride when their children speak French or any other western language beside Farsi. 

On the contrary, they never related to Asian languages or Eastern way of living. 

I don't know about "Creating Revolution". I have had many Russian friends whom I attended their annual meeting in Russian churches and I met many of those Russian old timer alive from the time of Russian Revolution in Oct. 1917. Many of them believed that the revolution was made by U.S. 

I was surpised to see the same kind of mentality is common among many Iranians who were resided in western countries. I was totally shocked. The same line of thinking. 

Now, how truth is in that idea ? That is a question. Many people believe in many things according to their life experience. For example, people who lived in wealthy families during shah days or during Tsar days in Russia, they never thought there were poverty among some families. Or people who were raised in non religious families never realized that there were some families who were devoted to their believe system. Each person see the world from the angle he/she might have been raised. 

If there were a conspiracy, we should see who benefited from the revolution ? I personally think all western countries, along with Iranian people, benefited more if shah was still on power. They never benefited when bunch of the thieves and terrorists,  who had no respect for international community, were on power. 

Siavash,

Especially, his statement regarding he can't wait to see "them" dead is disturbing. And. this is from someone who claims to be a "real" left. 

At last, we cannot expect the remnants of the 19th century to adopt the 21st century civil liberties.

"I did not know it then - perhaps I did not want to know - but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. "

                                      Quated GR from our shahanshah memoir

GR:

It seems you didn't read what I wrote previously. I asked you to look at the any statement according to it's time.  The above statement had been said after American hostages were taken by Islamists and they were demanding shah's return in exchange for releasing U.S hostages. 

Van Thieu fought with communism all the way till South Vietnam was captured by Ho Chi Minh forces from the north. He didn't want to leave Vietnam but he was forced to leave by U.S military advisors. He still wanted to fight with communism, but U.S stop supporting him and he was fled from Vietnam with CIA helicopter and resided in London for a few years. Then he fled to U.S and lived in suburb of Boston till his death in 2000. He maintained that U.S didn't support him enough, otherwise, he would have defeated communism. He was a quite man who was walking with his dog in the evening around his house in Boston area. His neighbors never heard he said anything after he moved to U.S. Since his departure from Vietnam in 1975 till his deaht in 2000, he only had a couple of lectures in Orange county , nearby Los Angeles, where the right wing Vietnamese were populated. I wish I could see this man in person. There was a rumor in Tehran that he opened liquor store in U.S which was not true and Islamists made that up. 

This story is aside from Batista forces in 1962. All those historical events proven that in one point U.S had to let it go. They also had let it go in any situation from Ehiopia when Mengistu Halle Mariam took power (1974) all the way to Angola when the Cuban soldiers occupied the country (1975). 

The interesting point is that all those right wing parties have something in common. All of them believed that U.S didn't support them enough, otherwise they would have defeated the Left.

Mehrdad A,

Yes, Indeed,

But are you sure the guy is NOT Palestinian ? There are a lot of Arabs on payroll by criminal mullahs. They can dress in different clothes such as left ...nationalists....etc but they all have one thing in common. They're fighting with oppositions, NOT with mullahs. 

Siavash,

A Palestinian fighting for his own cause is better than an Iranian leftist taking side with the regime against the opposition and wishing them to be dead. This is how low they can go.

"Az beekh arabs" are the ones who are the real epitome of sheer ignorance and bigotry...those oghdeis who take pride in being counted as "whites" by a criminally notorious regime such as South Africa in those days..."Az beekh arab" are the ones whose IQ is so low that can't even recognize the wrongs of a race-based government. Just go and die, please...you piece of wretched darbedar...People like you are the real reason that the ones like me never ever regret the overthrow of the filthy Pahlavis... We did you guys in... Job well done...noosh- e jaan...Now go and please die...

Btw: the racial connotation of "az bikh arab" is unintended and utterly regretful.

 "By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights toIran's future oil output, "

                                      GR's quote on "Oil embargo"

The revolution started way before the disagreement about oil came to the picture.

Here says the social turmoil began long before Brits became aware of new oil contract disagreement. 

On January 7, 1978, an article ("Iran and the Red and Black Colonialism") appeared in the national daily Ettela'at newspaper. Written under a pseudonym by a government agent, it denounced Khomeini as a "British agent" and a "mad Indian poet" conspiring to sell out Iran to neo-colonialists and communists.^[16][17]

Upon the publishing of the article, religious seminary students in the city of Qom, angered over the insult to Khomeini, clashed with police. According to the government, two were killed in the clash; according to the opposition, seventy were killed and over five hundred were injured. However, the casualty figures are different in different sources.^{[16][17][102][106][107][108]}

Consolidation of the opposition[edit]

According to the Shi'ite customs, memorial services (referred to as chehelom) are held forty days after a person's death.^[109]Encouraged by Khomeini (who declared that the blood of martyrs must water the "tree of Islam"),^[102] radicals pressured the mosques and moderate clergy to commemorate the deaths of the students, and used the occasion to generate protests.^[110]The informal network of mosques and bazaars, which for years had been used to carry out religious events, increasingly became consolidated as a coordinated protest organization.^[22][1

^Source:

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution}

Sometimes I ask myself why we still come here to discuss a subject?
We all know by now, how these discussion will end..... Always the same insults and accusation .....
you know what? I am not arab, I am Iranian and love my country and I am against this government, no matter what you want to believe....
But I hope these Mulla never leave Iran, because as soon as they are  removed from the power, there starts a civil war in the country!
We are not ready for democracy yet!
And I'm afraid we will never be ready..... We are the children of a dictatorship!
Most of us, are living in democratic countries with rules and regulation, yet we still haven't learned how to have one civil discussion about Shah and the regime, even in a free site!
We go from insulting and accusing up to wishing death for the other party who don't agree with our opinions!
Say what?
Democracy starts with ourselves! Being tolerant of other people belief and opinion....
We all know this, isn't it? We don't stop repeating this to each other.
Yet at the first sign of disagreement, we start the insults and belitteling, acccusing and mocking the other party....

Wishing death for the other party?
For what?
Just because they don't agree with us and they don't want to understand our point?

Bertruand Russel once said:

“I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.”

keep this in mind!
This is only a site, those are only the simple discussion....
Why should this always go so  awry?
I, myself, have been driven crazy sometimes to the point of insulting the people who were really bullying and abusing......
And I regret it.

I am so disapointed!
 

Mini whatever,

Like I said before, I didn't create that expression of "Az Beekh arab".  It had been part of Persian culture since Arab invasion 1400 years ago .

Race and racial prejudice is something new. It belongs to the era of rising Nazi party in Germany in 1930's.

What you read in my blog about POWEFUL SHAHANSHAHI PASSPORT had nothing to do with racial prejudice. Monarchy passport welcomed by any country around the world.

  Unlike Arabs and indians and Paki .....etc... Iranians were highly respected among international community under the shah's hegemony.

Our Monarch's smart leadership was the reason for that. NOT being white or none white. You got it all wrong.  Our king was able to bring dignity, international prestige and respect for Irainians around the world. The main purpose of this blog was to recognize our king's efforts for better life, NOT racial prejudice. However that doesn't justify Arabs as an inferior race because they are not able to solve their difference with Europeans in a civilized manner. Arabs choose savage way of terrorism to settle their differences. Arabs still need Europeans to civilized them. They still need Europeans teach them how to behave according to the norms and standard of 21 century 

GR:

So what was the connection of that plan in mid-1970's with oil disagreement in Oct. 1978 ?

According to the literature you posted above, the Brits didn't know back then our shahanshah would be disagree in signing the new contract.  Brits only realized there wouldn't be new contract in Oct.1978. Their negociation collepsed in Oct.1978. So why they had to be concerned in mid-1970's. ? 

Also,  to what extension some Iranian college kids in BBC radio, Farsi section, was representing the foreign policy of Brits government. ?

 Were those Iranian kids truely representatives of Brits government ?

Were they making decision for Brits government foreign policy ?

There were some college kids. They needed money to survive in British society, so they choose to work in radio station. Were they politicians ? Of course NOT. 

One of our commentators compared the role of BBC in supporting shah's oppositions to French resistance during German occupation in WWII.

That is what I called it "Very poor judgment" because Brits was close ally of Franch government during occupation.  Now, our commentator putting Iranians dissents with French resistance. Shah was friend with west and Brits. Unlike Germany he was not enemy or occupier of British. So why Brits suppose to support shah's enemies. ?  Shah didn't do anything bad to Brits. Comapring shah with Germany is like comparing apple with orange. 

No Nookies For Mini Joon Tonight.

She is a Potty-mouthed, bad bad woman.

Me don't like her no more:((

Last response of GR seems to be vanished. But I have it emailed to me. (It was indeed doomy gloomy but I will keep it!)

Dear Siavash, if you want the detailed factual documents, you have to wait 30 or 50 years from now to see the publication of the classified documents. Even then, the most sensitive ones won't be published. But if you don't see the interconnection of BBC with the British intelligence and the British government, during WWII in Europe, during the Islamic devolution in Iran, and until now with substantial expansion of Persian service (and closure of many services in other languages because of the 'tight budget' at the same time),  and its activities during the promotion of the regime and its so called 'reformists'... then you don't want to see anything at all. There is no point to argue.

One of the advantages of avoiding conspiracy theories and circumstantial evidences, and promoting a positive political idea instead, is that you don't have to argue on speculations indefinitely! Look at those Mossadeghists and Toodeh with their 'coup' stories!... they never end we never hear what they actually want (except everybody dead of-course!)

Dear Sohrab_Ferdows:

Once our dear friend user ID (ANGLOPHIL) asked me to watch the below video. The video talks about the reason for downfall of Pahlavi dynasty. I found the video very useful.

Please watch the video.

I appreciate your feed back.

Sincerely,

Siavash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aywa7lUt_as&feature=related

This is what ANGLOPHILE wrote me a while back:

Thanks "Benrose" for re-posting the GR's last comment. I looked for it and I couodn't find it either, but I don't think it has ever been posted here.

May be it was in your personal email. Thanks anyway.  

Yes personal email. I have activated email notification in Iroon account. So I receive the emails. I won't re-post it.

GR will do it if he wants to.

Dear Siavash, I listened to the video. Mr. Ajudani is repeating some of the points that many others have also realized and raised since the time that Islamic government took over Iran. The most important point (in my view) in this video is the aknowledgment of ignorance of Iranian intellectuals regarding the history of their nation. This unfortunately is true to this very day as the sources of knowledge and education for most people (including intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals equally) has become a few websites here and there with questionable reliability.

I have no idea how deep and how reliable is the knowledge of Mr. Ajudani or any other person in such matters and the supperficial comments (which is shared by many) regarding some common stories related to a particular issue does not make one an expert on that matter. Other than that, Mr. Ajudani is a very well spoken person who is able to convey his thoughts clearly. My problem is the fascination among Iranian intellectuals regarding western medias and whatever comes out of that and other western sources.

One cann't get informed about history by watching videos and TVs. Media, before anything else, is a tool of propaganda to push an agenda, whether it is selling pepsi cola or selling a story. Hvae a good night.

Thanks Mr. Sohrab_Ferdows

ATTENTION ALL IROON.COM READERS.

The following comment came on my personal email which is very informative. I don't know why it was deleted from this blog. 

Thanks GR for this informative comment.