Would Iran have been better of under the Shah? [Archive]

SoSo

03-09-2009, 06:09 AM

Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi would still have passed away in 1980, I guess; we can only wonder what kind of sovereign his son Reza Pahlevi would have been. He has campaigned for a relaxation of the rigors of Islamic law in Iran, for the release of political dissidents and the right of the Iranian people to form rival political parties and contest elections freely, choosing their own form of government. Whether he would have been such a reformer had he ascended to the Peacock Throne is hard to say.
A trained fighter pilot, the new Shahinshah might have lavished funds on the Imperial Iranian Air Force, in the manner of King Hussein of Jordan. It's likely that instead of MiG-29s and Su-24s, Iran would have purchased F-15s and F-16s (I think the F-16s had actually been ordered but the Revolution took place before they could be delivered). I read somewhere that the Iranians intended to aquire B-1 bombers as well. I don't know if that's true.
Most Iranians would probably be better off, at least materially. But the Shah was as intolerant of political dissent as the mullahs are today. Women would likely enjoy the same freedoms as in the West. Unfortunately, the treatment of Iran's ethnic minorities, Arabs, Baluchis, Kurds, etc., might not be any better, since these groups were suspected of disloyalty to the state even under the monarchy.
I wonder if a monarchist Iran would be trying to develop nuclear weapons? This would have displeased Israel, although the Shah would have been less likely to use them against the Jewish state than Ahmedinejad and the mullahs.

ren0312

03-09-2009, 06:15 AM

Holycrusader

03-09-2009, 06:35 AM

mas-36

03-09-2009, 07:22 AM

Bs...
Shah was crazy bastard, and he was not legitimate king as monarchs from Bahrain and UAE...
Iran is much bigger that UAE and Bahrain so they will not able to achieve the same standard of living. Especially with leader like shah who overspend they money on toys...
Shah Iran currency was called "pahlavids", its say a lot about the guy that name the currency of the country with his name...

agreed!

A better question would be to ask what Iran today would look like had we not overthrown a democratically elected leader like Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. Democracy in Iran died when the Shah took over, and only paved the way for the Ayatollahs.

LordKitchener

03-09-2009, 07:54 AM

I wonder if a monarchist Iran would be trying to develop nuclear weapons?

The Shah was aiming to acquire nuclear power weapons. The French were building him a nuclear plant but then the 1979 Revolution happened and Ayatollah Khomeini shut down the program.

Sabzweb

03-09-2009, 08:27 AM

If Iran was still a monarchy today you would likely see it being as democratic as Bahrain or the UAE, and may also have the same standard of living.

Bs...
Shah was crazy bastard, and he was not legitimate king as monarchs from Bahrain and UAE...
Iran is much bigger that UAE and Bahrain so they will not able to achieve the same standard of living. Especially with leader like shah who overspend they money on toys...
Shah Iran currency was called "pahlavids", its say a lot about the guy that name the currency of the country with his name...
Democracy like Bahrain? Legitimate king as the monarch from Bahrain? Do you guys even know anything about Bahrain? It's a majority-Shia country ruled by a non-native unelected Sunni Sheikh whose family originally comes from Saudi Arabia. It's hardly a model of legitimacy, democracy or liberalism.

Sabzweb

03-09-2009, 08:31 AM

agreed!

A better question would be to ask what Iran today would look like had we not overthrown a democratically elected leader like Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. Democracy in Iran died when the Shah took over, and only paved the way for the Ayatollahs.
Mossadegh was ahead of his times. Had he not been overthrown, Iran would be an industrialized country today.

Holycrusader

03-09-2009, 08:58 AM

Democracy like Bahrain? Legitimate king as the monarch from Bahrain? Do you guys even know anything about Bahrain? It's a majority-Shia country ruled by a non-native unelected Sunni Sheikh whose family originally comes from Saudi Arabia. It's hardly a model of legitimacy, democracy or liberalism.

After wikipedia
Legitimate power is the ability to influence through authority, the right by virtue of one's organization position or status to exercise control over persons in subordinate position.

Baharain is more or less ruled by Al Khalifa family from XIX century. That make them more legitimate rulers than Pahlavi family... Thats a FACT not opinion...

As to the democracy in Bahrain. I never say they are democracy there.

1curious

03-09-2009, 09:01 AM

I wonder if a monarchist Iran would be trying to develop nuclear weapons? This would have displeased Israel, although the Shah would have been less likely to use them against the Jewish state than Ahmedinejad and the mullahs.
Quite amazing how often this question is asked, answered, forgotten, asked again …but the mythology and ignorance persist… Even more amazing is that the factual answer is well documented along with some serious mistrusts some of the most powerful US politicians had towards the Shah.

In summary.
- The US was the first country that supplied Iran with nuclear technology and nuclear materials capable of being developed into weapons grade.
- The Shah, to assure the world of his good behavior, joined the NPT. Iran is still a signatory.
- Many in Ford’s Administration deeply mistrusted Shah’s assurances
- American Scientist from Oak Ridge National Laboratory concluded that planned Esfehan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTEC), had "unusually large" size of the facility that "makes it theoretically possible to produce weapons-grade material“.
- Shah’s arguments and objections were identical to those made by Iranian leaders today.

Primary declassified source:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/index.htm (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/index.htm)

Some posts from relevant threads
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3951888&postcount=26
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3909858&postcount=143

takavar92

03-09-2009, 10:22 AM

thing is, the shahs time would end sooner or later, the only thing which would make a difference is in what manner he left. if time played as it did he would've died in 1980. (hypothesis off course)
iran would've been better off military wise, economically and politically but many aspects of life were non-existent back then.
the revolution was inevitable due to politcal pressure and internal problems. The shah also had the unwanted issue of the west being scared of him and his intentions, as one person once said; he was just too powerful.

all i can easily say is that wish the revolution happened say 8 years later, by then the iranian economy would have matured and military and industrial self-sufficiency would've been there to play forward for a self sufficient state in the future.

as this is a military forum wed be looking at
F-5G wild weasels
F-14's (there was apparently intent for 80 more bringing that to 160 F-14s!!!)
160-300 F-16's (number depends on whether the f-16 or f-18 would replace the phantoms)
plus then there allways the attack/bomber force which id be expect f-111's and berhaps b-1's or even conventionally armed b-52's.....
ohwell here we are and the past cant change :cantbeli:
:)

Sabzweb

03-09-2009, 11:02 AM

After wikipedia
Legitimate power is the ability to influence through authority, the right by virtue of one's organization position or status to exercise control over persons in subordinate position.

Baharain is more or less ruled by Al Khalifa family from XIX century. That make them more legitimate rulers than Pahlavi family... Thats a FACT not opinion...
Sorry, but you make no sense. Al Khalifa are not even Bahraini by origin, and Bahrain was not even a country before 1971. To say that Al Khalifa family are somehow more legitimate rulers than Pahlavi family, is an odd statement.

takavar92

03-09-2009, 01:47 PM

Iran swapped (they were forced to by the British) Bahrain for abu musa and the two tunb islands (situated near in UAE in the Persian gulf)

Gleipnir

03-09-2009, 01:51 PM

A better question would be to ask what Iran today would look like had we not overthrown a democratically elected leader like Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. Democracy in Iran died when the Shah took over, and only paved the way for the Ayatollahs.
Agreed!
Hear hear!

Hollis

03-09-2009, 01:57 PM

agreed!

A better question would be to ask what Iran today would look like had we not overthrown a democratically elected leader like Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. Democracy in Iran died when the Shah took over, and only paved the way for the Ayatollahs.

Do you know the difference in supporting and actually doing. What about the UK's involvement and Oh yeah... the cold war (meaning CCCP was involved) too. Unless that "WE" is a very big mouse in your pocket.

Let's face it, look 1979, If the US had to the power to overthrow anything, then why is the Guardian Council still in power?

Back to topic, If the Shah would have stayed in power, I think it would be safe to say, there would have been greater democracy added. The war with Iraq probably would not have happened, and Iran would be a major and key player in the ME. That would be my guess.

Ordie

03-09-2009, 02:07 PM

Mossadegh was ahead of his times. Had he not been overthrown, Iran would be an industrialized country today.

I agree and most Iranian I've met still have alot of respect for the guy.

Missed opportunity.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 02:13 PM

I agree and most Iranian I've met still have alot of respect for the guy.

Missed opportunity.

Maybe more like a martyr's complex, he was stopped before he was able to do much. He also aliened the middle class and Shi'ias and a lot of other people. Hopping in bed with the CCCP was not wise choice.

apadana

03-09-2009, 02:53 PM

Do you know the difference in supporting and actually doing. What about the UK's involvement and Oh yeah... the cold war (meaning CCCP was involved) too. Unless that "WE" is a very big mouse in your pocket.

Let's face it, look 1979, If the US had to the power to overthrow anything, then why is the Guardian Council still in power?

Mosadagh was overthrown in 1953. During those days Iran was dominated by foreign political forces because it was a fragile country. In 1979, it was too late for the US to do anything to help the Shah but the Shah did ask the US for guidance to help defuse the situation many times prior and during the revolution but no one could of stopped millions of Iranians going to the streets and changing the government. . You can’t compare 1979 to 1953 just as you cant compare 1979 to today’s situation in Iran. I recommend you read a book called All the Shahs man. Its shows the US and British involvement in the coup of 1953, you will be surprised.
I think you take everything personally and easily get offended because of your love for your country but were stating what happened in history and its not like we are just blaming the US for the 1953 coup. The British were the originators of the idea.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 03:05 PM

Apadana, It was not a good time. Again Supporting a coup does not make it happen. It has to have internal support and that support has to be major players and in numbers to make it happen.

BTW, I am not saying the CIA did not aid in the coup, but also keep in mind if the CIA was there so was KGB and others.

Some people act like it takes a few CIA agents, a lot of money and coup will happen. That is not the case. Also people tend to ignore the KBG w/friends involvement. They are also pumping in money and aligning people to their side.

There was a lot of mistakes made during that period...on all sides not just one. We might say Iranian people lost in the coup of '53... maybe. We do know the Iranian people lost in '79. In '79, the revolution was a broad base movement. Communist, leftist, trade unionist, feminists, Shi'ia etc where involved in the coalition against the Shah. With Communist, we know the KGB was there too. After the revolution the Shi'ia seized control. A estimated 35,000 - 50,000 leftist when to prison never to be seen again.

KGB has a much better reputation than the CIA for getting things done.

kahn267

03-09-2009, 03:21 PM

What would Iran be like now if the Shah had not been overthown in 1979, although the Shah was an authoritarian, under him Iran had civil relations with Israel, and without the economic and poitical isolation that came after 1979, then Iran would have had the chance to continue its economic growth, which was pretty impressive under the Shah, plus with the Shah still in power the US would not have been forced to back Saddam as a counterweight against a beliggerent Iran.

Israel's relations with Iran back then was purely from an arms dealing perspective, where it gave Saddam something to worry about more then attacking Israel.

MaverickCowboy

03-09-2009, 03:26 PM

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/nuke.jpg

Rudolph

03-09-2009, 04:32 PM

What a fascinating topic I know nothing about.. Will put All the Shah's Men on my wishlist. That Shah looks like he came right out of the novel Dune. ;) The latter was heavily based on the ME, and US foreign policy at the time, etc. He was from the House of Pahlavi after all... Sorry, OT.

Dune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_universe) series, the Padishah Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padishah_Emperor) — also commonly referred to as "Emperor of the Known Universe" or "Emperor of a Million Worlds" — is the supreme ruler of humanity, whose power is checked by the Spacing Guild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_Guild), the Bene Gesserit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit) and the Landsraad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsraad).]

Any good books about his reign, which is objective, yet speculates on the positive outcome of his rule? I think the older one gets the less you care about right or wrong, there's this whole world beyond good and evil, and that's where some of the greatest men have lived. But, I don't know him, so, feel free to recommend me something.

This looks mighty interesting, an autobiography, written shortly before his death Answer to History. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_History)

"The lesson of the wickedness and immorality of international power-politics was burnt 'yes, very literally burnt' into my mind and heart. The main lesson I learnt was that when you are weak you have got to be very patient. You have got to accept humiliation. You have got to take the worst kind of insults. But in your inner heart you have got to love your country, have faith in its people and believe in their destiny as well as yours. If you do so, there is always a little ray of hope left which kindles in your conscience and inspires you to make the best of the worst possible circumstances and save whatever little you can of your land and its inheritance. That is the key to human survival amidst overwhelming difficulties." - Shah Pahlavi

WarDancer

03-09-2009, 05:14 PM

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/nuke.jpg

WTF? A little OT isnt it? And sorta creepy at the same time.

apadana

03-09-2009, 05:39 PM

Well this is the first time I ever heard the KGB had anything to do with the 1953 coup. The reason why the coup happened was because Mosadagh nationalized the Angelo Iranian Oil Company from the British which irritated the British government. The British accused Mosadagh of being a communist even though he denounced communism and worked to have better relationship with the West . He even made a trip to the United States to warm up relationship with Washington. But the British who were use to having basically free oil under the Pahalvai ERA wanted him gone and to bring back the Shah. But they needed America’s support in achieving their objective. The British were never able to convince Truman to aid overthrow Mosadagh. But when Eisenhower became the president they were able to convince him. The CIA and the M16 were able to plan what later became know as covert operation AJAX. The Embassies of both nations worked in Tehran and planned/financed different pro-Shah groups and bribe government officials in Iran and specifically the military to help orchestrate the coup. The reason why they were easily able to achieve their coup objectives was simply because Iran was a weak Democracy. Iran was in its third year of being ruled by a Democratic government in its long monarch history. If anything Iran needed Western support to maintain its fragile Democracy.
Sure, I will say that there were different political groups active in the 1979 revolution which included communist that were influenced by the KGB but I cant say that was the case in 1953 simply because I have never seen any factual evidence. Of course, I would change my opinion if you could provide any sources that back up your claim.

Apadana, It was not a good time. Again Supporting a coup does not make it happen. It has to have internal support and that support has to be major players and in numbers to make it happen.

BTW, I am not saying the CIA did not aid in the coup, but also keep in mind if the CIA was there so was KGB and others.

Some people act like it takes a few CIA agents, a lot of money and coup will happen. That is not the case. Also people tend to ignore the KBG w/friends involvement. They are also pumping in money and aligning people to their side.

There was a lot of mistakes made during that period...on all sides not just one. We might say Iranian people lost in the coup of '53... maybe. We do know the Iranian people lost in '79. In '79, the revolution was a broad base movement. Communist, leftist, trade unionist, feminists, Shi'ia etc where involved in the coalition against the Shah. With Communist, we know the KGB was there too. After the revolution the Shi'ia seized control. A estimated 35,000 - 50,000 leftist when to prison never to be seen again.

KGB has a much better reputation than the CIA for getting things done.

apadana

03-09-2009, 05:52 PM

The best book will be All the Shah’s Men which is a unbiased book about this subject. Also, if you want to learn more about Iran, Israeli, and US relationship before and after the 1979 revolution you should read “treacherous alliance: the secret dealing of Iran, US, and Israel”.
Shah was rather stupid and simple. In the late 1970’s his closes aides tried to help Shah ease the situation but he simply out of touch with the reality on the streets of Iran. He didn’t make any decisions to help stop the revolution and this made Khomanis job a lot easier. In fact, he was given the option of assassinating khomaini but he refused. He didn’t want to listen to anyone but himself and he didn’t have any good ideas. The decisions he made were too late and his time was up. About his relationship with Israel, he was never a close friend of Israel. He only did what he though made economic and military sense. In the 70’s he thought it was more important to have better relationship with Arabs and he openly criticized Israel every chance he got.

What a fascinating topic I know nothing about.. Will put All the Shah's Men on my wishlist. That Shah looks like he came right out of the novel Dune. ;) The latter was heavily based on the ME, and US foreign policy at the time, etc. He was from the House of Pahlavi after all... Sorry, OT.

Dune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_universe) series, the Padishah Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padishah_Emperor) — also commonly referred to as "Emperor of the Known Universe" or "Emperor of a Million Worlds" — is the supreme ruler of humanity, whose power is checked by the Spacing Guild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_Guild), the Bene Gesserit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit) and the Landsraad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsraad).]

Any good books about his reign, which is objective, yet speculates on the positive outcome of his rule? I think the older one gets the less you care about right or wrong, there's this whole world beyond good and evil, and that's where some of the greatest men have lived. But, I don't know him, so, feel free to recommend me something.

This looks mighty interesting, an autobiography, written shortly before his death Answer to History. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_History)

"The lesson of the wickedness and immorality of international power-politics was burnt 'yes, very literally burnt' into my mind and heart. The main lesson I learnt was that when you are weak you have got to be very patient. You have got to accept humiliation. You have got to take the worst kind of insults. But in your inner heart you have got to love your country, have faith in its people and believe in their destiny as well as yours. If you do so, there is always a little ray of hope left which kindles in your conscience and inspires you to make the best of the worst possible circumstances and save whatever little you can of your land and its inheritance. That is the key to human survival amidst overwhelming difficulties." - Shah Pahlavi

Hollis

03-09-2009, 06:49 PM

I would change my opinion if you could provide any sources that back up your claim.

And everything that you read is factual evidence, collected and assembled to represent what actually happened. Maybe try it on someone else.

I already know your opinion.

"The US concerned about Mossadegh now seeking help from local superpower, the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union),"

Maybe peddle your fish else wheres.

All Shahs men is not unbiased.

Again to have a successful coup, The major factors must be internal, not external. Especially in a country as large as Iran.

Hippie Homer

03-09-2009, 06:57 PM

Anyone's better than the current leaders.

Rudolph

03-09-2009, 06:59 PM

Anyone's better than the current leaders.

The mantra of the 20th century, if you ask me...

Hollis

03-09-2009, 07:05 PM

The mantra of the 20th century, if you ask me...

Could have worked out better for the new government. They would not have succeeded in the revolution with the help of the rest of the coalition and friends. Something our leftist friends have not learn, you can not make a pact with the devil and walk away. The devil in this case, religious extremists. Especially when your political views are considered very antagonistic by the religious extremists.

Rudolph

03-09-2009, 07:09 PM

Could have worked out better for the new government. They would not have succeeded in the revolution with the help of the rest of the coalition and friends. Something our leftist friends have not learn, you can not make a pact with the devil and walk away. The devil in this case, religious extremists. Especially when your political views are considered very antagonistic by the religious extremists.

Foreign policy has taken up new dimensions. Post-WW-2 decisions still haunt and plague the West... more so than they admit..?

apadana

03-09-2009, 07:16 PM

I am not saying everything I read is factual but given that I have read books, articles, documentaries, movies , and talked to actual people who lived during those times I have generated the opinion that I have today. And given that I am Iranian I am obviously going to be more interested about the subject and thus study it more. Like I said, I have never heard the KGB was behind the 1953 coup but I am open minded and open to learning more about something I have never heard of. This isn’t an Iran vs. USA or as some would like to claim an “anti-US” stance. It’s what I and most people know based on facts on history books. Sure at any coup in the history of mankind internal forces would have participated to make it happen but in Iran those internal forces were influenced or bribed by foreign forces.

The US and the British were concerned about Mosadagh turning towards the USSR for help but it never occurred . It was against Mosadaghs beliefs to turn Iran to a communist country. He pushed hard for Democratic change in Iran and Democracy as he put it was against the principles of communist. He never visited the USSR at the prime minister but he did visit Washington and other nations in the West. Till this day , there hasn’t been one shred of factual evidence which shows Mosadagh was turning into a communist. Like I said, this was the excused the British used to convince the US to support the coup. If former secretary of state Albright acknowledge that the US made a mistake in 1953 then why cant others? I cant believe that some still believe the British claims that Mosadagh was a communist which is a idea/excuse that originated before 1953 in order to overthrow Mosadaghs government. I will always point out the flaws/mistakes/dark history of Iran because as a Iranian it’s my duty to acknowledge the good and bad of my country.
Let me as you this, do you think the coup would have occurred if the CIA and M16 didn’t finance/plan it?

And everything that you read is factual evidence, collected and assembled to represent what actually happened. Maybe try it on someone else.

I already know your opinion.

"The US concerned about Mossadegh now seeking help from local superpower, the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union),"

Maybe peddle your fish else wheres.

All Shahs men is not unbiased.

Again to have a successful coup, The major factors must be internal, not external. Especially in a country as large as Iran.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 07:18 PM

I did not say the KGB was behind the coup, US and the UK was, OK, are we clear there?

The KGB was involved in support of the Communists in Iran. If anything they were pro-government, anti-Shah.

Did you know the CCCP referred to itself as a democracy too, Democratic centralism.

Pushing for nationalization is not capitalism. Look at Chavez.

On the coup, let me say it again, for a coup to succeed, the major players and major support must be internal. If it was just hard work in planning and money, There would have been coups Iraq, Syria, Egypt, CCCP, Eastern Block Countries, El Salvador, Venezuela, ............. etc

Unless you read the Gramma where with the CIA anything and all things evil are possible. Just like Che' trying to export his brand of revolution. The country must be internally ready for change. He failed in understanding that in Bolivia. Also similar to the myth of Communist Revolutionary doctrine in creating a international communist movement.

BTW do you know who the Tudeh party is?

apadana

03-09-2009, 07:28 PM

I did not say the KGB was behind the coup, US and the UK was, OK, are we clear there?

The KGB was involved in support of the Communists in Iran. If anything they were pro-government, anti-Shah.

Did the KGB ever succeed in Iran? No. All government of Iran have been against the Soviet Union. This includes Shah, Mosadagh, and the current government. Iranians have never been communist by nature. But the KGB did have a small presence in Iran just as they did in most nations but nothing compared to the CIA/M16. They weren’t able to change/influence the politics of Iran compared to the CIA or M16. That’s a fact no one should deny.

Did you know the student who took over the US embassy meet the night before. There were 4 or 5 leaders. One of them was Ahamadinejad. When the two student leaders brought up the idea of taking over the US embassy Ahmadinejad and 2 others were against it and proposed that they take over the Soviet Embassy and thus they didn’t participate. I am just saying this to illustrate that communism was never popular in Iran.

apadana

03-09-2009, 07:35 PM

On the coup, let me say it again, for a coup to succeed, the major players and major support must be internal. If it was just hard work in planning and money, There would have been coups Iraq, Syria, Egypt, CCCP, Eastern Block Countries, El Salvador, Venezuela, ............. etc

Well that not the really the case when you have a 3 year old fragile Democracy in a country that’s never experienced Democracy and has been ruled by kings since its creation. Mosadagh introduced something Iran never experienced , it was a democracy but a weak democracy. Just like Iraq or Afghanistan today. Didn’t Bush and other says that the US needs to stay and support the Democratic transition in those country’s or else Democracy wouldn’t prevail? Well that was also the case in Iran. Foreign forces could of easily manipulated and changed Iran’s government. Iran needed the West to support its Democracy and that’s exactly what Mosadagh tried doing by visiting Washington.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

03-09-2009, 07:40 PM

Hollis

03-09-2009, 07:40 PM

Well that not the really the case when you have a 3 year old fragile Democracy in a country that’s never experienced Democracy and has been ruled by kings since its creation. Mosadagh introduced something Iran never experienced , it was a democracy but a weak democracy. Just like Iraq or Afghanistan today. Didn’t Bush and other says that the US needs to stay and support the Democratic transition in those country’s or else Democracy wouldn’t prevail? Well that was also the case in Iran. Foreign forces could of easily manipulated and changed Iran’s government. Iran needed the West to support its Democracy and that’s exactly what Mosadagh tried doing by visiting Washington.

Why don't read about it and Shah dismissing Mosadagh once. Also read the Shah's letter that was use in the trial of Mosadagh.

Shah refused what Mosadagh request in 1952?

Mosadagh appoints himself what in 1952.

Your history is not very good.

Again, do you know who the Tudeh party is?

Hollis

03-09-2009, 07:42 PM

The USSR's success rate. Not to shabby. Eastern Europe is going ok now. Plenty of infrastructure. Decent living standards. Okish economy. Only real failure being N Korea

The Wests success rate. Hmm Middle East, Africa, South America, democracies being overthrown because they were to "socialist"

YAY the WEST IS AWESOME!

Like I said, the KGB, with a lot less funding than the CIA where much more competent. Like you point out here. Everyone blames the CIA and nothing is said about the KGB. Actually I would not want Putin to be mad at me.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 07:47 PM

Foreign policy has taken up new dimensions. Post-WW-2 decisions still haunt and plague the West... more so than they admit..?

I agree, but not just the West. I think of lot of what we are dealing with today are from the mistakes of the cold war collectively. During that time, often the choice was bad or much worse. A good analysis of that time needs to explore all the players in the cold war, not just the West.

There were some really strange alliances.

apadana

03-09-2009, 07:56 PM

Why don't read about it and Shah dismissing Mosadagh once. Also read the Shah's letter that was use in the trial of Mosadagh.

Shah refused what Mosadagh request in 1952?

Mosadagh appoints himself what in 1952.

Your history is not very good.

Again, do you know who the Tudeh party is?
What part of my history is not good? I think I know my history better than you just as you would know US history better than me.

You Asking me if I know what Tudeh party is like me asking you if you know what the KKK is . Like I said Mosadagh appointed himself as the Prime Minister. He gave power to the other branches of government which the Shah always refused. The majlis or parliament had power. But Shah had absolute power and the majlis had little power. There was no checks and balances or any sord of shared power when the Shah was in power. And I have read about Shah’s letter in trial but then again what does that prove? The only thing it proves its that Shah fabricated and manipulated and use his power to convict an innocent man who wanted the best for his country. If Mosadagh is not what you portray as him to be then he wouldn’t be so popular and mesmerized by all Iranians alike today. People love him for a good reason, its not because they are anti-shah, anti-US , anti-what ever. Its because they know he was a true patriot who brought democratic change to Iran.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

03-09-2009, 08:07 PM

Like I said, the KGB, with a lot less funding than the CIA where much more competent. Like you point out here. Everyone blames the CIA and nothing is said about the KGB. Actually I would not want Putin to be mad at me.

The lead up to the Invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam is a case in point in how the West works. Even I agree that Saddam needed to go. He was a nasty prick. But here in Australia all we heard was from the opposition groups living in exile. Of course these guys are going to be opposing such a regime. So the West gives them countless millions in growing the opposition to assist in a smooth transfer. Iraq's still a mess.

On the same token when the USSR over ran Eastern Europe key projects were implemented to improve the education standards, living standards of not just those who were pro-communist but towards the general population. Which also ensured a relatively peaceful change in governments and economic models from the mid 1980's

Whilst the CIA was good at getting things done. It's biggest failure was at nation building. The Russians on the other hand were bloody good at it. And the West had a bad habit of backing guys that were even worse then the guys they replaced.

The West generally did have good intentions but the West was easily manipulated by opposition groups to regimes.

Yeah sure there is tensions in Eastern Europe, there has been some fighting. But compared to what has transpired in other parts of the world where the West was involved. Huge difference.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 08:10 PM

What part of my history is not good? I think I know my history better than you just as you would know US history better than me.

.

You assume a lot. He is popular and so is Ernesto Guevara.

You claim he was in power three years, a little over one year in reality.

Appointed by the Shah on 22 July 1952 Head of government

Arrested 20 August 1953. End of his power.

He was a nationalist, so yes that was popular. The world was coming out of colonialism. You seem to over looked that Mossadegh was working with the Tudeh party (and others).

The communist where active in anti-colonialist movements at the time.

JJC

03-09-2009, 08:12 PM

It looks like the West/CIA spilled more blood in Latin America, at least, supporting "democracies" than KGB did for its interests during Cold war.

Obviously Shah would be better for the interests of the West like no one would dare try to nationalize oil from foreign control. But the Iranian people rose up against Shah for good reason and I don't see how Ayatollah regimes are worse than the time of Shah's Savak (supported by the CIA.)

Hollis

03-09-2009, 08:18 PM

The lead up to the Invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam is a case in point in how the West works. Even I agree that Saddam needed to go. He was a nasty prick. But here in Australia all we heard was from the opposition groups living in exile. Of course these guys are going to be opposing such a regime. So the West gives them countless millions in growing the opposition to assist in a smooth transfer. Iraq's still a mess.

On the same token when the USSR over ran Eastern Europe key projects were implemented to improve the education standards, living standards of not just those who were pro-communist but towards the general population. Which also ensured a relatively peaceful change in governments and economic models from the mid 1980's

Whilst the CIA was good at getting things done. It's biggest failure was at nation building. The Russians on the other hand were bloody good at it. And the West had a bad habit of backing guys that were even worse then the guys they replaced.

The West generally did have good intentions but the West was easily manipulated by opposition groups to regimes.

Yeah sure there is tensions in Eastern Europe, there has been some fighting. But compared to what has transpired in other parts of the world where the West was involved. Huge difference.

Yes, sometimes the US was in it for the right reason but backed the wrong cause. The Soviets had the wrong reason but backed the right cause.

Part of the myth was all powerful players. Both the West and East had to play with cards they were dealt. The stakes were far greater than one country. All the countries that seen foreign involvement where only the battlefield where a global struggle was taking place. The sad part those countries, battlefields became insignificant.

Like here, maybe Mossadegh should have stayed in power, it might have benefited Western and Iranian interest. Or he might have pulled some socialist moves and became a proxy for the Soviets like Iraq. Part of understanding what went on, is to understand the global politics of the cold war. I does make a person feel better when their was ruined by foreign intervention.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 08:21 PM

It looks like the West/CIA spilled more blood in Latin America, at least, supporting "democracies" than KGB did for its interests during Cold war.

Keep in mind, where the CIA was the KGB was there too, They were in Latin America too.

I wonder what would have happened if the KGB had a book published about them, like the Pentagon Papers. What would people be saying today. KGB was global in operation just like the CIA. Just like the CIA in the Soviet Union, the KGB was also in the US.

apadana

03-09-2009, 08:21 PM

You assume a lot. He is popular and so is Ernesto Guevara.

You claim he was in power three years, a little over one year in reality.

Appointed by the Shah on 22 July 1952 Head of government

Arrested 20 August 1953. End of his power.

He was a nationalist, so yes that was popular. The world was coming out of colonialism. You seem to over looked that Mossadegh was working with the Tudeh party (and others).
The communist where active in anti-colonialist movements at the time.

Using GOOGLE or WIKI to learn history in 20 minutes is not always perceived as being fully knowledgeable about a subject. The day at shah appointed in him is not the exact date of him becoming what he was. And like I said the British wanted the US to believe that he was working with the Tudeh party and that’s how they convinced the US to support the coup. Today pro-monarchs still say he was working with the Tudeh party . But where is the evidence? Like I said there hasn’t been one shred of evidence which shows he supported the communist ideas of the Tudeh party. And I think you would know that not all nationalist leaders were popular. Shah was also a nationalist.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 08:24 PM

Using GOOGLE or WIKI to learn history in 20 minutes is not always perceived as being fully knowledgeable about a subject. The day at shah appointed in him is not the exact date of him becoming what he was. And like I said the British wanted the US to believe that he was working with the Tudeh party and that’s how they convinced the US to support the coup. Today pro-monarchs still say he was working with the Tudeh party . But where is the evidence? Like I said there hasn’t been one shred of evidence which shows he supported the communist ideas of the Tudeh party. And I think you would know that not all nationalist leaders were popular. Shah was also a nationalist.

That is the second time you insulted me. Unlike you, I was alive and well and had friends involved in the Iranian Revolution. Yes Shah was a nationalist too. I never commented on him.

JJC

03-09-2009, 08:40 PM

Keep in mind, where the CIA was the KGB was there too, They were in Latin America too.

I wonder what would have happened if the KGB had a book published about them, like the Pentagon Papers. What would people be saying today. KGB was global in operation just like the CIA. Just like the CIA in the Soviet Union, the KGB was also in the US.

I know they were there and that KGB was not a benevolent organization, but it never makes it easier for me to swallow the work of U.S./CIA in history courses because we are the supposed beacon of democracy and also not everything seems to be the case of anti-communist fight during the cold war.

Massadeq signed his death certificate when he tried to nationalize oil fields from BP and in case of Guatemala, the concern for "communist" influences began only after Guzman threatened the interests of United Fruit.

Hollis

03-09-2009, 08:46 PM

I know they were there and that KGB was not a benevolent organization, but it never makes it easier for me to swallow the work of U.S./CIA in history courses because we are the supposed beacon of democracy and also not everything seems to be the case of anti-communist fight during the cold war.

Massadeq signed his death certificate when he tried to nationalize oil fields from BP and in case of Guatemala, the concern for "communist" influences began only after Guzman threatened the interests of United Fruit.

It was the Cold War. I know because it was war, a lot of things were done, it would have been much better if we had other choices or could have done better. It didn't help having communist agitators stirring things up. The the Soviets did not like having our agitators doing the same in the Eastern block countries. Soviets where pretty much tit for tat.

Any ways, if memory is right Mossadegh died of old age under house arrest. Something like that.

It was a big mistake on his part. Looking back, I might have said it was a food decision at the time, but today it was a grave error.

commanding

03-09-2009, 09:38 PM

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

MaverickCowboy

03-09-2009, 10:08 PM

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/nuke.jpg

WTF? A little OT isnt it? And sorta creepy at the same time.

It was a nuke blast when i posted it. i ahve no clue why its that now.

WarDancer

03-10-2009, 03:31 AM

It was a nuke blast when i posted it. i ahve no clue why its that now.

Ok, just thought maybe there was an "issue" you wanted to discuss.

ARGAR FORKBEARD

03-10-2009, 04:22 AM

CHECK OUT THIS DOCUMENTRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iar_1OKOmc

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/Kxetu3PORCs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/Kxetu3PORCs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Bojan

09-02-2009, 01:28 PM

Iran would be a super power if Shah was ruling still.
In 1978 the Imperial Iran power was ranked 5th of the world.

That was also the biggest reason that the revolution came, all made by Carter and the West (BBC day and night talking about Khomeini)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgy0wmu6NKw

better vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCjOk2t6Ah4

ayanami_tard

09-02-2009, 01:35 PM

the only thing i want to see in iran is

1-improve the relation with west(sure they ain't liking israel but there are also countries that has no ties to israel but have high degree of relation with the west)

2-improve their image,through better,transparent policy

3-use that oil dollar to improve infrastructure

4-improve their fvcking air force

people here are looking iran like middle east version of north korea:roll:

/2cent

Ordie

09-02-2009, 02:30 PM

"No body can overthrow me...I have power."
-Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, 1978

Bojan

09-02-2009, 02:34 PM

“Don’t listen to those who speak of democracy. They all are against Islam. They want to take the nation away from its mission. We will break all the poison pens of those who speak of nationalism, democracy, and such things.” –

Ayatollah Khomeini – in a meeting with Iranian students and educators, Qom, March 13, 1979

BearInBunnySuit

09-02-2009, 11:31 PM

I read All the Shah's Men and it was by no means an unbiased book. I got the impression that the author was stumbling over himself to lionize Mossadegh while trying to demonize the Shah.

I am not sure what would have happened to Iran under Mossadegh--he could have been the charismatic leader (dare I say like Ataturk) that the country needed or an idealist who inspired people but could not deliver results. And perhaps the fact that Iranians weren't able to find out on their own fueled his legend where he became a greater stateman in death than he probably could have been in life.

budgie

09-03-2009, 12:17 AM

Would America have been better off if Iran were still under the Shah?

Fixed for you. The answer, no.

Maybe the US would have decided to topple Iran's regime over non-existent, or worse, real WMD in 2003 instead. Either way meddling brings problems.

Flagg

09-03-2009, 01:14 AM

The USSR's success rate. Not to shabby. Eastern Europe is going ok now. Plenty of infrastructure. Decent living standards. Okish economy. Only real failure being N Korea

The Wests success rate. Hmm Middle East, Africa, South America, democracies being overthrown because they were to "socialist"

YAY the WEST IS AWESOME!

You can't be serious...even for you(a left leaning nihilist) this is a bit rich.

Hollis

09-03-2009, 01:19 AM

Flagg

09-03-2009, 01:31 AM

Ok, with the Shah, no 1980-1989 War with Iraq.

With the fall of the Eastern block countries, Change would have happened in Iraq in a positive direction without violence (probably) other wise no Islamic Revolution.

Iran would have probably been better off if the Shah stayed in power. Change still would have happen but it would not have probably been through the political process. During the cold war seems a lot of people have forgotten the Soviet Union influence. The seem to think the US was the only game in town. With out cold war, heavy handed tactics of the Shah would have been less tolerated by the west.

I'd agree....I'd be thinking that in a best case scenario for Iran continuing under the Shah they would have turned out to be like an Uber-Chile.

The most successful nation in the region in many respects, democracy or strong-armed democracy-like, with a very bright economic future, but still suffering from the societal consequences from massive human rights violations of the past as both a domestic and international issue....and probably nuclear armed....or like Australia...very quickly nuclear capable.

Hollis

09-03-2009, 01:45 AM

Flagg

09-03-2009, 02:02 AM

During the Cold war most third world countries where screwed. Stuck between two major and powerful factions fighting over global influence. It seem the political climate dealt only with extremes, one heavy handed oppressor for another.

I particularly like to use the Ethiopia/Somalia example.....flip-flopping Cold War Superpower partners......I wonder if anyone in Moscow or Washington DC got confused and booked flight to Addis Ababa instead of Mogadishu, or vice versa by forgetting to read the latest memo?

Hollis

09-03-2009, 02:05 AM

Some third world countries were able to play the two powers. Not many though. As bad as the cold was, that was sure better than a full blown hot war.

Universal_Soldier

09-03-2009, 02:27 AM

With all the amenities and economic ties (with west) available under the shah, Iran was running on a spot if not regressing.

The Shah had more than his fair share of time and opportunities to make things better and failed. That doesn't mean that Iran is doing better now, however, I think the nostalgia here is a bit misplaced.

Atlantic Friend

09-03-2009, 03:41 AM

If Iran was still a monarchy today you would likely see it being as democratic as Bahrain or the UAE, and may also have the same standard of living.

Hardly, IMHO. You don't fund social/economic progress for a 66-million country as you do with a 0.7-million (or 5-million for the UAE) nation.

Flamming_Python

09-03-2009, 06:50 AM

Would Iran have been better off under an American-installed dictator? Perhaps... can't blame people for wanting to get rid of him though.

budgie

09-03-2009, 10:09 AM

Ok, with the Shah, no 1980-1989 War with Iraq.

With the fall of the Eastern block countries, Change would have happened in Iraq in a positive direction without violence (probably) other wise no Islamic Revolution.

Iran would have probably been better off if the Shah stayed in power. Change still would have happen but it would not have probably been through the political process. During the cold war seems a lot of people have forgotten the Soviet Union influence. The seem to think the US was the only game in town. With out cold war, heavy handed tactics of the Shah would have been less tolerated by the west.

I dunno. Call me pessimistic but something has always seemed to go horribly wrong when the west meddles in teh MidEast. They're just too resistant to us. As long as dictators (or kings) are tolerated by the west, sooner or later there will be a hostile regime.

Hollis

09-03-2009, 10:14 AM

As long as dictators (or kings) are tolerated by the west, sooner or later there will be a hostile regime.

I think the was a by-product of the cold war. I believe some of our problems today are spin-off from that period too. Lot of those choices back then seemed to be limited to very bad and very very bad.

DS73

09-03-2009, 02:30 PM

The USSR's success rate. Not to shabby. Eastern Europe is going ok now. Plenty of infrastructure. Decent living standards. Okish economy. Only real failure being N Korea
Czechoslovakia was one of the richest countries in the world during 30s, they are still poorer than Greece. That is they are still are poorer than the country that had civil war and crazy dictatorship.

"Okish economy"? What do you actually know about economy in eastern Europe? It is everything but OKish. Curiously enough the only industries that go somewhere are part of pan-european corporations. I hope you are not going to suggest that WW are built on old skoda lines.
And why not to mention uber successful Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, China before 80s, ultra effective Mongolia, Vietnam etc? Or Cambodia?

So, in your book the communists fail only if they ruin the country deep to the ground. Check.

The Wests success rate. Hmm Middle East, Africa, South America, democracies being overthrown because they were to "socialist"
YAY the WEST IS AWESOME!Also Greece, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Brazil (child of IMF) that now is getting richer than Argentina(who would think of that?), HK (child of UK). In Africa you can compare central African states, where the french kept control, with "freed" countries. You can compare Mexico, that is under American influence, with central American states. Do you know that there are illegal workers coming to Mexico?

The lead up to the Invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam is a case in point in how the West works. Even I agree that Saddam needed to go. He was a nasty prick. But here in Australia all we heard was from the opposition groups living in exile. Of course these guys are going to be opposing such a regime. So the West gives them countless millions in growing the opposition to assist in a smooth transfer. Iraq's still a mess.
This is because "the west" didn't participate in this "transfer". The neocons hijacked political process in Iraq. Instead of resisting using normal legislative actions "democrats" prefered to be in "opposition" without digging into problems and never looking for proper solutions. It was the failure of american political system. Nothing "typical" for the "West".

On the same token when the USSR over ran Eastern Europe key projects were implemented to improve the education standards, living standards of not just those who were pro-communist but towards the general population. Which also ensured a relatively peaceful change in governments and economic models from the mid 1980's
rofl.I can believe this sh&t is still alive. You are writing like all this was "wonders of communist system".

"Educational standards" etc. were improved all over the globe. And these improvements rates differed quite much depending on political status, friends etc. For example there was Greece, and there was Czechoslovakia.
The west had revolutions of 60s that change much more than many people think, while WP was frozen.

Whilst the CIA was good at getting things done. It's biggest failure was at nation building.
:cantbeli:. CIA were bunch of amateurs. Pretty much all their actions can be characterized as pure gambling, with characters coming pretty much from nowhere and picking up local heroes in, I even cann't name, what way.

The secret organization, that allowed their cover officers to publish details about "secret" very dirty operations. The state organization that successfully failed to do pretty much any operation in proper ,that is "cover", way.

The Russians on the other hand were bloody good at it.
Like where? Give one country please that is still friendly toward russians and appreciates to be built in russian way.
OH! I know such country, it's Mongolia. Too bad their own existence is threaten by China, so no one can be sure if this appreciation is sincere. p-)

And the West had a bad habit of backing guys that were even worse then the guys they replaced.
Everybody had problems with picking right people. Even now in 21 century the anthropology is in it's infancy.

The West generally did have good intentions but the West was easily manipulated by opposition groups to regimes.
Perks of the democracy. Most loud win.

Yeah sure there is tensions in Eastern Europe, there has been some fighting. But compared to what has transpired in other parts of the world where the West was involved. Huge difference.Like where, the examples please, only relevant ones. With numbers.

If to return on topic.
Yes Iran would be better that way. Iran was paying serious money for the education and industrialization. I see many tend to forget that pretty much all industry that is used now by "independent" Iran was built during shah years.

Obviously democracy doesn't come in one day. any social evolutionary change is slow, with many stops and side effects.
Revolutionary changes are always accompanied with discarding of big strata of population who resist or is thought to resist these changes.
Iran was no more special than any other country.

LaoSexMachine

09-03-2009, 02:51 PM

No. Just traded one tyranny for another.

Universal_Soldier

09-03-2009, 02:53 PM

No. Just traded one tyranny for another.

exactly, It's a wash at best

Flamming_Python

09-03-2009, 06:15 PM

"Okish economy"? What do you actually know about economy in eastern Europe? It is everything but OKish. Curiously enough the only industries that go somewhere are part of pan-european corporations. I hope you are not going to suggest that WW are built on old skoda lines.

That's because those were the only industries that were saved during the 90's, the only ones that had enough capital injected into them to survive. All of the rest were dismembered, sold and scrapped.

Most likely, the new industries that were built in Eastern Europe since '91 (of which there aren't actually that many), use a lot of the old facilities of socialist enterprises and the existing infastructure that dates back to the socialist period.

The vast, vast, majority (we're talking +95%) of the most successful industries and enterprises in Russia and the former-USSR, from Kamaz, to Gazprom, to Almaz-Antey, to SeverStal, are those whose facilities, infastructure, factories, specialists, etc... were almost all developed during the Soviet period.

And why not to mention uber successful Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, China before 80s, ultra effective Mongolia, Vietnam etc? Or Cambodia?Why not mention the uber-successfull capitalist economies of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and half of Russia while you're at it? Actually don't, because in all of those cases, even after 20 years these parts of the world still haven't got back development-wise to where they were in 1989.

Mongolia for your information, is also worse off now than it was in Soviet times. Vietnam, under their current government (which is now about as socialist as China's) is doing quite well economically.

No. Just traded one tyranny for another.

x2

DS73

09-11-2009, 06:59 PM

That's because those were the only industries that were saved during the 90's, the only ones that had enough capital injected into them to survive. All of the rest were dismembered, sold and scrapped.
Really, all of them?:cantbeli:
Oh, I've forgotten I communicate with a russian.
Apparently there is something in wodka that make you paint world in black&white.
FYI. There were many more attempts to enter eastern&central european market. Majority of these attempts were foiled by vigilant "patriots" who were against of selling their "Patria" to some imperialists.

May be because of that quite a few of success "import" stories are built on empty ground. Good example can be pretty much all existing beverage companies in E&C. Europe.

Most likely, the new industries that were built in Eastern Europe since '91 (of which there aren't actually that many), use a lot of the old facilities of socialist enterprises and the existing infastructure that dates back to the socialist period.
Again these ASSumptions. Why not to check what was used?
In vast majority of cases the only thing that was used was land and in few cases local brand. Equipment was new, infrastructure new, personal was reeducated. For example WV invested 2+billions in Skoda.

The vast, vast, majority (we're talking +95%) of the most successful industries and enterprises in Russia and the former-USSR, from Kamaz, to Gazprom, to Almaz-Antey, to SeverStal, are those whose facilities, infastructure, factories, specialists, etc... were almost all developed during the Soviet period.
I don't see how this can anyhow relate to the situation in E&C Europe. Again generalizing? Or ASSuming that everything is the same?
All mentioned companies are russian and are in Russia. There is no capitalism per se in Russia quite yet.

Why not mention the uber-successfull capitalist economies of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and half of Russia while you're at it? Actually don't, because in all of those cases, even after 20 years these parts of the world still haven't got back development-wise to where they were in 1989.
What any of these countries have to do with the subject of thread discussion?
All of mentioned countries indeed have remained in russian sphere of economical&political influence. If anything they are vivid example of where russian "patronage" leads.

Mongolia for your information, is also worse off now than it was in Soviet times. Vietnam, under their current government (which is now about as socialist as China's) is doing quite well economically.
Mongolia is still in russian sphere. Vietnam made incredible efforts to reestablish working relations with USA and W. Europe. You've stated the results.