.
.
.
Anglo-Persian oil and the UK installed Colonel Reza Khan in 1921. They controlled much of the south of Iran using various local military units and police forces. The Russian domination of the north of Iran disappeared with the 1917 Russian revolution, and thus with the Russian factor gone the British felt confident enough to control the whole country through their puppet, Colonel Reza Khan. The British got rid of their puppet in 1941, when he refused to follow their orders. After being in power for 20 years Reza Khan had developed feelings for Iran, and I may add that this puppet did some useful and constructive things for Iran. Personally I think he should have listened to his puppet masters and got rid of the German nationals in his country and allowed allied aid to go through his country to the Soviet Union at a critical time, but than again he must have felt that it was his sovereign country. There are of course a variety of puppets, and he was one of the better ones.
Anglo-Persian oil and the UK used the USA to get rid of the democratically elected government of Dr. Mossaddeq in 1953 for daring to nationalise Anglo-Persian oil. The UK, with Anglo-Persian oil were the main instigators. The USA the main facilitator. Anglo-Persian/UK/USA re-installed their puppet, a weak minded playboy, as the Shah of Iran, with much greater power than he previously exercised, and thus guaranteeing his demise. Puppet playboys and power don't go well together.
Iran basically was a fully functioning democracy up to 1953, which was compromised by the actions of the UK/USA, and Mosaddeq seeking emergency powers to neutralise the efforts of the UK/USA. Some pro-Shah elements have subsequently argued that the revolt against Mosaddeq was really a reaction to his action of curtailing democracy and declaring emergency powers and that the removal of Mosaddeq had nothing to do with the USA/UK, but this is a little circular/linear way at looking at things.
Had the UK been a little bit more magnanimous in their negotiations with Iran about oil concession rights, and not sabre rattled with a battle fleet in the Persian Gulf, blocking Iran's oil exports (BP used a similar tactic in 1978 against the Shah, by not selling 3 million barrels of his oil out of a total export of 5.2 million barrels, and thus creating a financial crisis in Iran, upon which the Islamic Revolution was built a year later-------do learn this lesson Iran) with general cold undiplomatic behaviour against Iran in the UN and directly against Iran. Had they not allegedly killed Sepahbod Haj Ali Razmara in 1951, who was negotiating a reasonable settlement which was agreeable to both sides. A LOT OF BOTHER FOR ALL SIDES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.
SAVAK was created a few years later by the Israelis/USA.
In 1979 BP/UK got rid of the Shah of Iran using the USA/SAVAK/SAVEMA. In 1979 BP/UK installed the mullahs into power believing that they could be more easily controlled than the Shah. The Shah had with OPEC developed an independent pricing policy for oil which angered BP/UK. Since 1973 the British had been thinking about getting rid of him, and the opportunity came when Carter came into power in 1977, and Ex-British officials/academics such as Professor Bernard Lewis using a few eloquent words allegedly tickled the fancy of the new American political leadership, and other people persuaded the new inexperienced Carter administration who lapped up 'The Bernard Lewis plan' like naive idiots thinking they were privileged to great sages, when in fact that all they were acting as were fronts for a section of the British establishment and BP.
In both the 1953 and 1979 coups, destabilisation was used as a tool to change the regime the UK/BP did not like in Iran. 1952-53. 1978-79. It seems once again with action and results in Iranian Baluchistan via Jundallah (American backed) and Iranian Kurdistan via PJAK (USA/Israel backed), and Khuzestan (British backed), destabilisation seems to be the preferred method of removing the regime occupying Tehran. I understand MEX and other terrorist organisations have been lined up for deeper operations inside Persian Iran, and what we have so far seen is probing operations in Iran's periphery to see what the reaction is of the Fundamentalist Islamic puppet government in Tehran. As with 1951-3 and 1978-9 sanctions will be the main weapon.
Though given the military positioning of the USA and UK in Iran's neighbours, military action cannot be discounted. They could not have gone that far, and spent so much for nothing. So no matter what Tehran does, it may have been determined that the mullah's must be removed from power and a new set of puppets must be installed, educated and trained in the UK and USA.
From the above analysis it seems that the mullahs may well be toppled within the next year or two unless the mullahs display some remarkable tactical maneuvers which out smart the UK and USA. So far though, in response to the aggressive tendencies of the UK and USA, the mullahs in Tehran have not displayed any tactical advantages. It seems they are gradually being manoeuvred into being attacked by the USA and UK, either covertly or overtly. After all, BP/UK correctly calculated with the less educated mullahs heads in the Koran, they could be more easily manipulated than the Shah, whose administration was becoming far more sophisticated by the seventies, even as a puppet.
For Persians who are not puppets of the West and are not Islamic fundamentalists this regular UK/USA inspired puppet show must be frustrating. Iran is filled with intelligent and brave people so why can't they detect and prevent this regular UK/USA puppet show early and quickly? One hears all too familiarly that hundreds of Aghazadeh are flocking to the UK and Canada in anticipation of an attack against Iran this summer. The same happened with the Aghazadeh of the late Shah, as they too flocked to the West. Persians should note the coming and going of prominent Iranian political figures between France and Iran during 1979.
The largest Iranian community outside Iran is in the USA----700,000----so called educated people living in the country which has meddled in Iran before and could attack Iran at any time. They hide themselves in the USA by calling themselves `Persians`. Worse still some of them sell themselves to the USA, and dream one day of coming back into power in Iran, over the dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of Iranians and perhaps more with USA guidance.
