Iran before and after 1979

[Shahanshah]

Well I decided to post a video that my friend made since things are a bit hot on Iran these days/weeks..

It's funny to know most of these problems today would not exist if the revolution never happened.

You can watch PART 1 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKIU2q6EYqM

You can watch PART 2 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VALl4f5aSk

Enjoy! If you like it let everyone watch it and see how it was!

Personally I liked PART 2 a loooooot more!

[IDF_TANKER]

I watched a bit of the second movie - looks like over simplified BS propaganda to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason why Islamic Revolution succeeded in the first place is because Iranian people wanted change in the Shah regime - you know, because of the corruption and such.

[Shahanshah]

I watched a bit of the second movie - looks like over simplified BS propaganda to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason why Islamic Revolution succeeded in the first place is because Iranian people wanted change in the Shah regime - you know, because of the corruption and such.

Well it would be nice to tell me what is actually propaganda there.

Well.. you are right to have your own opinion but a lot of people nowadays are saying the western powers started to spread propaganda about Shahanshah in last 10 years. Paying mullahs, muslim groups etc etc.

Corruption? It was all being taken care of. There were like 4-5 organizations fighting against corruption. The country was just in the stage that it was getting built up all once again.

[IDF_TANKER]

Well it would be nice to tell me what is actually propaganda there.

Well.. you are right to have your own opinion but a lot of people nowadays are saying the western powers started to spread propaganda about Shahanshah in last 10 years. Paying mullahs, muslim groups etc etc.

Corruption? It was all being taken care of. There were like 4-5 organizations fighting against corruption. The country was just in the stage that it was getting built up all once again.

Look, man, I would take the Shah regime back any day instead of the current nightmare. But, again, there is a reason why the Shah regime fell so easily, apparently Iranian people had a problem with it. The fact the revolution was hijacked by Mullas is the whole other story.

[Shahanshah]

Look, man, I would take the Shah regime back any day instead of the current nightmare. But, again, there is a reason why the Shah regime fell so easily, apparently Iranian people had a problem with it. The fact the revolution was hijacked by Mullas is the whole other story.

I am glad you would.
Yes, you may think that the people actually revolted against the Shah but as I said this revolution is so deep and complex.

It's said that countries like USA and UK worked together to plan the downfall of the Shah. They started giving money to Aqvanhol Moslemim (terrorist group, muslims), MEK and other organizations. All these people gathered people. They gave money to villagers etc. People were too "revolution happy". I am trying to say that with lots of planing and money spent they got rid of the Shah.

Now you may not believe me but in the next few years when you hear this as the most common reason to the revolution atleast you know what some people said before. Before this wasn't too known to people, then now it's known to a lot of people.

I am not sure I mean if you want I could tell you a bit about their motive of getting rid of the Shah and to a level how it went, the names of those involved etc.

As a little candy I will give you this:

According to Alexandre de Marenches, Direcot-General of French SDECE, he had told the Shah that Jimmy Carter had determinded to overthrow the Shah and replace him with someone else. He also said that he mentioned to the Shah the names of those in US that had big part in this and that he had been in meetings against the Shah .. (de Marenches 1988, p. 125-126)

At the same time officials in Turkey and the prime minster in China said that Carter wanted to get rid of the Shah.

[IDF_TANKER]

I am glad you would.
Yes, you may think that the people actually revolted against the Shah but as I said this revolution is so deep and complex.

It's said that countries like USA and UK worked together to plan the downfall of the Shah. They started giving money to Aqvanhol Moslemim (terrorist group, muslims), MEK and other organizations. All these people gathered people. They gave money to villagers etc. People were too "revolution happy". I am trying to say that with lots of planing and money spent they got rid of the Shah.

Now you may not believe me but in the next few years when you hear this as the most common reason to the revolution atleast you know what some people said before. Before this wasn't too known to people, then now it's known to a lot of people.

I am not sure I mean if you want I could tell you a bit about their motive of getting rid of the Shah and to a level how it went, the names of those involved etc.


Actually I do very much so. You are saying very much new to me, a very different from what I had in mind. It all sounds strange to me, since AFAIK all the players you mentioned where those who brought Shah in the first place. And whom they hopped to place instead of Shah? Humeini? Did they think he would be a better one?

[Shahanshah]

Actually I do very much so. You are saying very much new to me, a very different from what I had in mind. It all sounds strange to me, since AFAIK all the players you mentioned where those who brought Shah in the first place. And whom they hopped to place instead of Shah? Humeini? Did they think he would be a better one?

People say that the Shah was friendly to west-world during 60's.. then when we entered 1970s he started to not give them anything they wished for.
Carter asked the Shah for personal things in Iran, industries, houses etc.. and he Shah refused to give him that so it pissed him off. As well as the UK and USA sent the Shah ultimatum for raising the oil price.

Anyway so why did they pick Khomeini, this is simple.
They needed a radical extremist islamic to stand against communism. Shahanshah was threatening to go on Soviet side if west did not give him what he wanted and vica versa. They could not afford getting Iran into hands of communism, if that happened.. then it would spread all over Asia to Africa. (Look up Operation Green Belt, make countries Islamic in a belt to stand against communism)

Khomeini was also known from before, he had the muslim people behind him and France had good relationship with him.

They also knew that they would keep Iran weak and destroyed so Iran wont be able to progress.

What I am saying to you right now is pretty much in simple form. I could write to you about why Khomeini on two-three a4 pages lol. Another day when I got more time I will be more than happy to write longer and explain more and better.

[Arvin]

Operation Green belt.To surround the USSR with rogue Islamic states.It would later happen in Afghanistan.The Shah had to go. British BBC radio would play anti-Shah propaganda.The crowds would gather.The Shah left Iran with out even putting much resistance.When the time was right Khomeini came in his chartered aircraft from his loft in France.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/aryamehr11/Islamist%20Takeover%201979/0000167838-003.jpg


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/aryamehr11/Islamist%20Takeover%201979/arton1510.jpg

[IDF_TANKER]

Thanks, man, it is incredibly interesting what you are saying. It seems that the natural resources of this country (and others, for this matter) is blessing and curse alike... It basically means, that any new Iranian government (if a new revolution happens), will find itself in the same cycle of pro-/anti-western intrigues. Also, do you know any sources I could use to learn more about this aspect of Iranian revolution?

[Arvin]

When Imperial Forces still loyal to the Shah tried to counter attack by having a 24 hour bombing strikes against Islamic revolutionary forces.Saddam then notified the Islamic Republic and this caused the executions of the core of Iranian Officer staff and other awaiting execution.One month later Saddam invaded Iran.


The Shah was no angel especially with SAVAK.But alot better then the Islamic Republic today.

[Arvin]

Thanks, man, it is incredibly interesting what you are saying. It seems that the natural resources of this country (and others, for this matter) is blessing and curse alike... It basically means, that any new Iranian government (if a new revolution happens), will find itself in the same cycle of pro-/anti-western intrigues. Also, do you know any sources I could use to learn more about this aspect of Iranian revolution?


This is the Shah's last interview in exile from Panama.
On the right it gives a description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1Xx_eh1g8

[Ordie]

I had the privilage of knowing one the Shah's Italian Chef. The Shah had a habit of staying up late drinking cappuchino with him. He recalls that the Shah was a bit aloof and sheltered by his staff.

[IDF_TANKER]

When Imperial Forces still loyal to the Shah tried to counter attack by having a 24 hour bombing strikes against Islamic revolutionary forces.Saddam then notified the Islamic Republic and this caused the executions of the core of Iranian Officer staff and other awaiting execution.One month later Saddam invaded Iran.


The Shah was no angel especially with SAVAK.But alot better then the Islamic Republic today.

How the Western help to Iraq during this war fits into this equation? Or they started help him on the later stages of war, when they realized the Khomeini is not good for them?

[Arvin]

How the Western help to Iraq during this war fits into this equation? Or they started help him on the later stages of war, when they realized the Khomeini is not good for them?


I will quote another member.The support to Iraq was to pro-long the war but alot of Iraqi weaponry was Soviet.


The US/West did not want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence and clandestinely supported and supplied Iran till around '85. The US offered friendship to the Mullahs, they pretty much told the evil shaytan to piss off. After that the West no longer supplied Iran. Iran also by then Iran was able to recover any ground gained by Iraq.

Even the reformers in Iran have mentioned this. Basically the Mullahs screwed the Irani people twice.

[IanSolo]

Well, my question is: the video shows the real Iranians feelings?

I mean, Iranian people really think that was better 'before' ( as it seems watching that vid...) or not?


Iranian members could tell us.

[Arvin]

Well, my question is: the video shows the real Iranians feelings?

I mean, Iranian people really think that was better 'before' ( as it seems watching that vid...) or not?


Iranian members could tell us.

The Shah was not the best and neither is the current government.But if I had to chose it would be back in that period then now.

[Shahanshah]

Thanks, man, it is incredibly interesting what you are saying. It seems that the natural resources of this country (and others, for this matter) is blessing and curse alike... It basically means, that any new Iranian government (if a new revolution happens), will find itself in the same cycle of pro-/anti-western intrigues. Also, do you know any sources I could use to learn more about this aspect of Iranian revolution?

I will get back to you on that. There are very little things on this but if you give me a few days so I can gather up things I will give you some.


Well, my question is: the video shows the real Iranians feelings?

I mean, Iranian people really think that was better 'before' ( as it seems watching that vid...) or not?


Iranian members could tell us.

I don't like to generalize but there are people who say it was much better before. Just a few days ago in Shiraz they put up pictures of Reza Pahlavi II (the one in america) and said they want to vote for him.

[Pars]

Welcome to the board, Shahanshah (http://militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=52740), refreshing to read your posts. I'll post my opinion when I'm on a computer that'll actually let me watch the videos. :)

[Shahanshah]

Welcome to the board, Shahanshah (http://militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=52740), refreshing to read your posts. I'll post my opinion when I'm on a computer that'll actually let me watch the videos. :)

Thank you Pars!

[Hollis]

My understanding was that the revolution against the shah was broad based. After the Shah was expelled a second conflict for control took place. Speculation was some where between 35,000 - 50,000 Iranians disappeared as the Mullahs finalized their grip on the country.

[Pars]

My understanding was that the revolution against the shah was broad based. After the Shah was expelled a second conflict for control took place. Speculation was some where between 35,000 - 50,000 Iranians disappeared as the Mullahs finalized their grip on the country.

HOLLiS, just in 1988, some speculate that the regime murdered some 30,000 people belonging to all branches of opposition in Iran (but mainly MEK). And that's even 9 whole years after the damned revolution took place.

Have a look:
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2007/september-2007/massacre_88_11007.shtml
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/the_1988_iran_massacre_crimes.html

[Hollis]

HOLLiS, just in 1988, some speculate that the regime murdered some 30,000 people belonging to all branches of opposition in Iran (but mainly MEK). And that's even 9 whole years after the damned revolution took place.

Have a look:
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2007/september-2007/massacre_88_11007.shtml
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/the_1988_iran_massacre_crimes.html


I had some friends at the University that went back, I often wonder if their names are among the murdered.

[Shahanshah]

They kill and kill (current regime) as if human life is nothing.

[Ulytau]

My understanding was that the revolution against the shah was broad based. After the Shah was expelled a second conflict for control took place. Speculation was some where between 35,000 - 50,000 Iranians disappeared as the Mullahs finalized their grip on the country.

Especially if i know true most of them ''disappeared ones'' help for revelation aganist Shah too..''Leftists etc''

Still my personal idea about Iran there will be just another revelation aganist current government..Normally Muhammed Hatemi ''Mohammed Khatemi'' get 77% vote aganist Mahmood Ahmedinejat but Mullahs wont let him for beeing president..

''Mostly youngs and women supporting him also he seems really wise man''

Especially its looking like there is really serious women movement too.

[LEB101]

the shah was a good man but this islamic republic is very bad and degerous and should be delt with

[gilgoul]

It's quite insane to think how much responsibility former president Jimmy Carter holds in this story.
Well, France too, giving asylum to Khomeini, sheltering him for years, and then flying him straight in the place, not counting all the pro-revolution propaganda that went on in western media.
The Shah may not have been perfect, far from that, the Sanjak was apparently ruthless, but hey, the west had worse bed fellows in history.

Another result of a "liberal" **** policy at the white house and post may 68 socialist media in western Europe, while France was governed by the infamous Giscard D'Estaing.

[Sabzweb]

Propaganda videos by LA-based monarchists who have no public support in Iran, and are only nostalgic for the power and status they lost in 1979.

If Shah was a wise man, and had not collaborated with foreign powers to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Dr. Mossadegh in 1953, there would have never been an Islamic Republic or revolution and Iran would be a secular democracy today. Khomeini was a nobody, it was Shah who made Khomeini into somebody by suppressing all the secular opposition and creating an atmosphere that gave rise to Khomeini and his likes.

Lessons from History, how Shah came to power:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ

[WarDancer]

Jimmy Carter is the sole reason for the turmoil in the middle east involving Iran. Had he stood by the Shah things wouldve turned out alot differently. But the liberal air head just couldnt resist the romance of a "revolution" and stood idly by while Tehran burned!!

[Shahanshah]

Propaganda videos by LA-based monarchists who have no public support in Iran, and are only nostalgic for the power and status they lost in 1979.

If Shah was a wise man, and had not collaborated with foreign powers to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Dr. Mossadegh in 1953, there would have never been an Islamic Republic or revolution and Iran would be a secular democracy today. Khomeini was a nobody, it was Shah who made Khomeini into somebody by suppressing all the secular opposition and creating an atmosphere that gave rise to Khomeini and his likes.

Lessons from History, how Shah came to power:

Wow. You like to write BS do you?

1. The author is not from LA. Next time type more BS and more facts ok.

2. Monarchist have a very public support in Iran. Just a few days ago in Shiraz the pictures of Reza Pahlavi II went on the streets saying "My vote goes to Him" because it's elections in Shiraz soon.

3. Mossadegh was overthrown by the people and not by any foreign power. Operation Ajax did not work. Mossadegh was not a democrat. He wanted to close the parliament, he wanted 6 months of dictatorial powers, he broke the Iranian economy, his own close followers who was like his right hand people went against him and much more.

4. Shah liked everyone and he forgave Khomeini, he could just kill him but he didn't. So you say Shah surpressed them, that, those etc YET the DAMN revolution happened!? Are you one of those who say half the Iranian population was SAVAK agents? I mean who the **** revolted them, SAVAK agents who had a good life? Police? Military?
Get out.

[Bitogno]

Well reading wikipedia about operation Ajax lead to another conclusion about the "failure" of this operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

And one of the source quoted in the wikipedia :

http://web.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/published/one-main/main.html

[Arvin]

Wasn't Operation Ajax a "sucess"?

[Shahanshah]

Wasn't Operation Ajax a "sucess"?

No. Their plan was that some general (I forgot his name) would give Mossadegh a letter from someone that said that according to the constitution he should leave right now, but Mossadegh told his men to arrest him and he was arrested at that time this operation failed.

The people instead got out and revolted against Mossadegh.

[Shahanshah]

HOLLiS, just in 1988, some speculate that the regime murdered some 30,000 people belonging to all branches of opposition in Iran (but mainly MEK). And that's even 9 whole years after the damned revolution took place.

Have a look:
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2007/september-2007/massacre_88_11007.shtml
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/the_1988_iran_massacre_crimes.html

Something interesting is that within 24 hours after a few days the disaster happened they executed thousands of generals, agents, police, workers, etc.

[Pars]

Something interesting is that within 24 hours after a few days the disaster happened they executed thousands of generals, agents, police, workers, etc.

In '79 or '88? It's heartbreaking to think of all the fine people that were murdered by these animals.

[Arvin]

One of the biggest brain drains in history also.

[George Winston]

Didn't the US CIA help install the Shaw as dictator by over-throwing a democratically elected government in Iran? I thought I heard that somewhere.

So the US should attack Iran because THEY now have debt??? Does the US have any debt? I'm building a bomb shelter.

[Shahanshah]

In '79 or '88? It's heartbreaking to think of all the fine people that were murdered by these animals.

I thin it was in 79. They did it to stop any counter-attacks on the Islamic Republic and as you maybe know, there was a operation that was going to be done by the Shah-supporters to bring back the Shah and they would of have done it but they had a traitor who gave it all away.

Although, there another thing.. Khomeini regime wanted the Shah back and their plan was to put the Shah in a zoo when they got him back. I know there was a huge amount of people ready to sacrifice themselves just so that doesn't happen.


One of the biggest brain drains in history also.

Certainly.


Didn't the US CIA help install the Shaw as dictator by over-throwing a democratically elected government in Iran? I thought I heard that somewhere.

So the US should attack Iran because THEY now have debt??? Does the US have any debt? I'm building a bomb shelter.

No, that's wrong. That's what they say, they call it Operation Ajax but as I said earlier the truth is that Operation Ajax failed and never worked. The people instead themselves went out and revolted against Mossadegh.

Mossadegh did not like democracy. He wanted to close the parliament and he wanted six months dictatorial powers. He destroyed Irans economy and started printing bills with his own picture on it. His closest supporters left him as well.

[Sabzweb]

Shahanshah,

Mossadegh was a democrat who was overthrown in a coup d'état. He never published bills with his picture on it, that's a false claim, just like the rest of your claims.

Your conspiracy theories go against mainstream academia. There are hundreds of books published on 1953 coup, the facts are undisputed and acknowledged by everyone from Henry Kissinger to Madeline Albright who apologized for the event.

BBC documents on 1953 coup:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050822.shtml

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm)

Sky TV on 1953 coup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejNk7VD0ru0

PBS on 1953 coup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

History Channel on 1953 coup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IA98HsUiAI



Who are we to believe? All these mainstream sources or your pro-Shah conspiracy theories?

I am done arguing with you, as I believe you're blinded by your partisan and unconditional love for Shah (judging from your user-name). I would advise you to keep an open mind and read few books on the subject.

Cheers

[Pars]

I do not believe that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was without flaws. In fact he made many gravely erroneous decision that ultimately drove the monarchy to its downfall. Sadly he was not a good leader as his father was. But I think all of us, in hindsight, can agree that the revolution was a turning point in Iranian history. Comparable to the tradegy of the Arab conquest 1400 years ago.

[Shahanshah]

Sabzweb,

Since you start out by saying my claims are wrong I will stop right there answering you then leaving you because I have nothing to say to someone who is trying to debate by lying here.



Dr Mozaaffar Baghaei was a man who worked hand by hand with Mossadeqh, he was the one that started the "group" and everything with him. The 25th November, 1949, he criticized Mossadeqh openly in the parliament and turned his back to him.
Mossadeqh wanted to close the parliament nor gave a damn about it.
"In invoking the will of the people, Mossadegh operated beyond the law and
in clear violation of the constitutional ****ouncement"

in 1951 the opposition in the Majlis harassed the new leadership in refusing to vote or in abstaining from meetings in order o prevent the formation of a quorum. That made Mossadegh to call for elections December. No one liked him.

His coalition depended heavily on the support rgfom Kashani, the Tudeh following in the streets and the Toilers workers party.

"The treasury was empty, and the sales of Iran's oil did not equal the revenues of 1949" (On the fiscal problems of 1951-1952 see "Persia Seeks a Master")

Majlis granted the premier dictatorial decree of power for six month preriod (The Economist, Mossadegh "forced" the break though his policy of placing loyal supporters in key post to the exclusion of pro-Kashani followers"
Then Mossadegh requested the extension of his decree making powers for another thirteen months, giving him pleanery power to rule without Majlis.

Mozafar Baghai, leader of Toilers party rebelled against dictatorial power (Once supported him!) Kashani likewirse agured that the grant of power was unconsitutional (Once supported him!)

Mossadegh started to replace pro-Shah commanders with officers less devoted to the Shah as soon as he got power.

The Shah helped Mossadegh in his case actually!

What REALLY happened:



THE CIA AND IRAN - WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Ardeshir Zahedi

http://www.ardeshirzahedi.org/cia-iran.pdf
http://www.ardeshirzahedi.org/main.html


On 16 April 2000, the New York Times published a story on what was presented as a “secret report” by a CIA operative concerning the events of August 1953 in Iran,. The following article is written in the interest of historical truth and attempts to put those fateful events in Iran into prospect perspective.

At this time when the future of relations between Iran and the United States is, once again, debated in public, it is important both sides steer clear of myths that have fostered so much misunderstanding between them.

One such myth has been woven around the claim by a few CIA operatives that they hatched a plot to get rid of Prime Minister Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh in August 1953 and (propelled my father, the later General Fazollah Zahedi into power with the Shah’s blessings.) That claim, first made in the early 1960’s and never corroborated by any hard evidence, has over the years found a niche in the historical folklore of both nations. In a recent feature the New York Times gave the claim fresh publicity, relaunching the debate over what actually happened in Iran in those remote days of the Cold War.

Victory, of course, has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan. Had the August 1953 efforts to remove Mussadeq from office failed, there would have been no CIA ''heroes'' claiming the credit.

There is a mass of evidence, including US and Iranian official documents and testimonies by people who played a role in the events that give the lie to the CIA operatives’ claim. Briefly, what happened in August 1953 was as follows: the Iranian political establishment was divided between supporters and opponents of Mossadegh. Mossadegh’s opponents looked to the Shah for a rallying point. My father who had served as Interior Minister in Mossadegh’s Cabinet has broken with him and established himself as the leader of the anti-Mossadegh faction.

The Shah was thus under pressure from many powerful circles and personalities inside Iran to dismiss Mossadegh and name my father as the new prime minister. Mossadegh recognized my father as his chief adversary at the time and did all he could to break him.

Mossadegh had been abandoned by many of his former colleagues, among them such personalities as Hussein Makki and Mozzafar Baqai, and opposed by parties that had provided the backbone of his support in 1951.
The most prominent members of the Shiite clerical establishment, including the Ayatollahs Borujerdi, Hakim, Shahresetani and Kashani were solidly opposed by Mossadegh and wanted the Shah to remove him. They were all in contact with my father and supported him in their struggle against Mussadeq.
A leading member of the Majlis (parliament) Hassan Haeri-Zadeh, who had been one of Mossadegh’s strongest supporters until then, even cabled the United nations secretary general to appeal for help against Mossadegh’s increasingly despotic rule.

The Shah had already clashed with Mossadegh’s in 1952 and forced the ''doctor'' to resign as prime minister. At that time, however the ''politics of street'' had turned against the Shah and he had been obliged to reinstate Mossadegh. In August 1953 the tide had turned against Mussadeq who had further undermined his own position by disbanding the parliament elected under his own stewardship.

The rest is history, as the saying goes. Or is it?
It is quite possible that the CIA and its British counterpart were engaged in the usual dirty tricks campaign in Tehran. Tehran had become one of the hottest ''theaters'' of the Cold War with the Soviet Union enjoying a strong presence through a mass Communist Party (the Toodeh), several front organizations and at least four daily newspapers. The Communists had also infiltrated the armed forces and the police, recruiting over 700 officers and NCOs.

What is certain is that Mossadegh’s fall was not due to any dirty tricks that the CIA might have played. Nor did the CIA have the kind of access its operatives claim to have had to the key figures of the revolt against Mossadegh including my father. The only time my father visited the US embassy in Tehran was a function in honour of Averell Harriman on 4th of July 1951, and in his capacity as interior minister, Harriman had come to Tehran with a mission from President Harry Truman to persuade Mussadeq to find a way out of the crisis over the nationalization of Iranian oil. (Cf. Vernon Walters in ''Silent Missions'').
My father never had any meetings with any CIA agents. One operative has claimed that he spoke to my father in German, ostensibly during secret meetings. The fact is that the only foreign languages my father ever spoke was Russian and Turkish, not German or English.

Iranian history remembers my father as a true patriot who wore the wound he had won in battle like so many badges of honour. Fazollah Zahedi had fought for virtually every inch of what he regarded as the sacred land of Iran, against a Bolshevik-sponsored regime along the Caspian coast to a British sponsored secessionist movement in the oil rich province of Khuzestan. During the Second World War had become a war prisoner of the British and sent into captivity and exile in Palestine, then under British mandate. Fazollah Zahedi was always big enough to fight his own fights, backed by his own loyal friends. To try and portray such a giant of Iran’s contemporary history into a bit player in a scenario fit for ''Mission Impossible'' requires a degree of cynicism that only frustrated egomaniacs might master.
Throughout the dramatic events that led to the fall of Mussadeq, I was at my father’s side as one of his principal political aides .Had he been involved in any foreign intrigue I would have known, he was not.

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. Henderson’s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.
The Iranian public, therefore, has a more balanced view of the events than its American counterpart which is fed recycled claims by former CIA operatives. British and Soviet accounts at the time also make it clear that Mussadeq had fallen victim to his own hubris which antagonized his allies and forced the Iranian people into revolt.

More than 100 books, by Iranian and American scholars, give the lie to the CIA operatives ''self-congratulatory'' account.
Barry Rubin writes “It cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah… Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door.”
Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''
Amir Taheri writes “What happened was not a successful conclusion of a (CIA) conspiracy but a genuine uprising provoked by economic hardship, political fear and religious prejudice.”
Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''
Even Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose ''secret report'' has been given top billing by the New York Times makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at the time simply failed.
Wilbert writes:'' headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair… The message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18 said that the operation has been tried and failed and that contrary operations against Mussadeq should be discontinued.''

Mossadegh was overthrown on 19 August when hundreds of thousands to Tehranis poured into the streets to demand his departure and the return of the Shah. This was not a military ''coup d’etat'' since there was no change in the constitution or any of the structures of the Iranian state. Nor was the Shah’s position as head of state affected. Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers. He simply exercised that power by dismissing Mossadegh and nominating Zahedi in a perfectly legal and constitutional manner… Mussadeq tried to resist his dismissal but was swept away by the masses.

The army played a supportive role in the anti-Mussadeq uprising and even then only after the people had taken the initiative. At the time my father was no longer on active service, having retired from the armed forces and engaged in political activities as a senator and leader of the anti-Mussadeq coalition. Mussadeq himself held the portfolio of Defence and enjoyed the support of many key officers of the armed forces, including the Chief of Staff appointed by himself.

Anyone who had studied the history of the turbulent years would also know that Mossadegh was the most pro-American senior politician Iran had produced. He was the darling of the Truman Administration which raised the amount of aid to Iran, distributed through Point IV, from half a million dollars to 23 million dollars. On August 18, 1953, a day before Mussadeq fell, Henderson met Mussadeq and offered him an emergency loan of 10 million dollars on behalf of the Eisenhower Administration.

Mossadegh himself never blamed the Americans for his downfall. He was intelligent enough to know why his political career led into an impasse.
The anti-Mossadegh coalition did, of course, look to the United States, as the leader of the Free World, to counter any ore than the soviets might have, made at the time to intervene in what was a domestic Iranian power struggle. From a geo-strategic point of view, therefore the anti-Mossadegh coalition regarded itself as part of the Free World. But does that mean that all those who fought Communism and upheld the cause of liberty throughout the Cold War were manipulated by the CIA?

Three years ago the CIA announced that almost all of its documents pertaining to the August 1953 events in Iran had been destroyed in a fire. Was someone trying to cover up the CIA’s most dramatic ''success story''? Or did the documents burn because the good ambiance created by the Iranian myth that had been fabricated by a few individuals with a lot of imagination and very little of scruples?


***************************


Empress Farah Pahlavi's response to the New York Times

Howell Raines Esq.
Editorial Page Editor,
The New York Times
229 West 43rd ST.
New York, NY 10036-3959
April 20, 2000

Dear Mr. Raines,

The article " a Secret C.I.A History" printed in the New York Times on April 16, 2000 renders a self-lauding, exaggerated, and partial account of the events of 1953. It also makes several erroneous and unfair remarks about my late husband, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Contrary to what the so-called secret history suggests, my husband's hesitation about dismissing Premier Mossadegh did not result from his indecisiveness. The Shah had strongly supported Dr.Mossadegh in the fight for the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, agreeing with him that Iran had been systematically exploited by the British and other foreign powers. For him, the Premier's struggle to emancipate Iran's resources took precedence over all other issue save protecting the nation's independence and territorial integrity. Dr.Mossadegh misperceived the international array of economic and military powers deployed against him and Iran. He overestimated the strategic importance of Iran's oil to the Western world. The country was taken step by step to a political and diplomatic impasse. Iran's economic and social conditions deteriorated. The Communist Party grew inordinately in size and power, penetrating several critical government institutions including the armed forces. In the meantime, his former allies - the middle class, clerics, merchants, and some members of the national front renounced him.

My husband supported Dr.Mossadegh as long as possible. For several months, he resisted many members of the political elite, including several of the Premier's former allies, who insisted that Dr. Mossadegh be discharged. The Shah’s reluctance sprung partly from his wish to be certain that deposing the premier accorded with Iran's constitution. It was only when the Prime Minister arbitrarily dissolved the constitutionally elected Parliament, and the Shah was convinced that the country's national independence and territorial integrity were manifestly threatened, did he decide to dismiss Dr.Mossadegh.

To claim that the Monarchy was saved in 1953 because of the C.I.A involvement and that the late DR. Mossadegh was removed from power with a sum of money is an insult to every Iranian.

The report says that the message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18th was that " the operation has been tried and failed." The Monarchy was saved because it was the will of all Iranians. While some selected documents produced by a specific agency may indeed be conducive to the current disposition of a specific administration, it would be wrong to assume any objective observer, be it an Iranian or foreigner, base his opinion solely on such a limited account.

It is unfortunate that in an attempt to appease the current ruling clerics in Iran, the government of the United States and increasingly the media have chosen to disparage the late Shah of Iran without consideration of his pivotal role in regional and world peace and his service to his country. It is equally unfortunate that they choose to confuse the attitude of the present regime in Iran towards the United States with that of the people of Iran.

The thirty-seven years of the Shah’s reign concurrent with the administration of eight US Presidents shows a close and mutually
beneficial alliance for most of the time.

Contrary to recent statements by US officials, Iranian people never held animus toward American before or after the events of 1953. Witness the friendship Iranians extended to many American in Iran prior to the revolution and the hospitality shown to the few Americans now traveling to Iran. In the interest of the two peoples, it is essential that no one allow this misconception to cloud sound judgment.

Iran will rise from her ashes.


Sincerely yours,
Farah Pahlavi

[Sabzweb]

I bring neutral mainstream academic sources and media outlets, and instead of refuting them with equally credible sources , you bring a propaganda paper written by Shah's wife and the monarchist activist Ardeshir Zahedi the son of the notorious General Fazlollah Zahedi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlollah_Zahedi#1953_Coup) who orchestrated the 1953 Coup on the ground? :roll:

I'm now sure that an objective debate with you is impossible, and our discussions are ultimately fruitless and lead to nowhere.

Bye

[Sabzweb]

Sadly he was not a good leader as his father was.
Reza Shah was a great leader, Shah was nothing like his father. Had Reza Shah lived long enough, he would have been ashamed knowing how his son turned out to be.

But I think all of us, in hindsight, can agree that the revolution was a turning point in Iranian history.
Responsibility of which partially lies with Shah and his stupid polices starting with 1953 coup.

[Shahanshah]

I bring neutral mainstream academic sources and media outlets, and instead of refuting them with equally credible sources , you bring a propaganda paper written by Shah's wife and the monarchist activist Ardeshir Zahedi the son of the notorious General Fazlollah Zahedi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlollah_Zahedi#1953_Coup) who orchestrated the 1953 Coup on the ground? :roll:

I'm now sure that an objective debate with you is impossible, and our discussions are ultimately fruitless and lead to nowhere.

Bye

NEUTRAL? NEUTRAL? You bring videos from BBC or other channels who participated in overthrowing the Shah! NEUTRAL!? You must be kidding them.

Guess what, I will go make some videos now saying that the president of USA is a puppet of Iran, I guess it must be true? Maybe I should go make a document about it? They all use the CIA documents as source and CIA is good at faking so you can't trust just because CIA release some documents about it, it can be fake. And guess what, neutral or not.. atleast it's not bull**** they have written, it's the truth kid.



Reza Shah was a great leader, Shah was nothing like his father. Had Reza Shah lived long enough, he would have been ashamed knowing how his son turned out to be.

Responsibility of which partially lies with Shah and his stupid polices starting with 1953 coup.

Quit the bull****. Reza Shah loved his son and would always love his son.

Get over yourself, the 1953 coup never happened. People overthrew Mossadegh.