I have not come across that many books by Iranians which closely and credibly looks at the role of the British, Americans and the French in the destabilization and subsequent over throw of the Shah. I have come across a few websites which allude to the British role specially, but nothing substantive in the way of a book. Perhaps there are Farsi language books which do extensively address the role of these Western powers in the over throw of the Shah.......but the best book that I haven't read but which I would recommend to readers who wish to understand how the West over threw the Shah is this one.(Especially if you are contemplating attacking Iran militarily---------I cannot emphasize the importance of this enough)
The journalist Mirebrahimi in that sense is very superficial, and perhaps, and although I am not familiar with his background, because he still lives in Islamic Iran, he must moderate the true facts of what actually happened in Iran during 1978-79 to get his work published.
He suggests that the West played a peripheral late role in the Islamic revolution of 1978-79, and very late in the game, as neutral observers otherwise but for the turn of events principally initiated by those great political revolutionaries the mullahs and their friends in the Iranian left. Whilst Engdahl in his 2004 book, suggests the West played a very key role in the toppling of the Shah. Engdahl's thesis makes sense, as do Engdahl's clear explanations of their motivations; On the other hand for those who follow these things Mirebrahimi's explanations do not add up.........they leave many questions to be unanswered. I am not going to picks these points and highlight them here, but this is the duty of people who are reasonably affected, and concerned by the subject of Iran.
On what logical grounds would the Carter administration topple the Shah? Well in all power structures there are several layers of power, with degrees of knowledge of what is really going on.......and finally different people have different agenda's.
- The Shah was an American installed puppet from 1953; whilst at an earlier time in 1941, he was a British installed puppet.
- His secret police SAVAK was trained by America and Israel.
- American oil companies for the first time broke the monopoly of the British control of Iranian oil, after 1953. They were given 40% of the market share
- The Shah put most of his petro-dollars in American banks-----some $30-40 billion is still languishing there, even now, as frozen Iranian assets at current prices.
- He brought huge amounts of arms from the USA, and perhaps worth $150 billion at todays prices. If he had continued in power perhaps another $300-500 billion; very much what Saudi is doing now with its petro-dollars
- He was a friend of Israel, and allowed them to open an embassy in Tehran.
- He gave Israel cheap oil, and bought arms from Israel worth $500 million per annum in the mid seventies; and MOSSAD and SAVAK carried out joint ops, mainly against Arab countries.
- The Shah all in all was a 'good-boy' who stood up when told to or sit. A man of weak character........and the perfect Third World puppet for America.
- The Shah was made 'policeman of the Gulf' in the early seventies, a very sensible plan which recognized after Vietnam that America could not control everything directly around the world and the best policy was by using local proxies.
Its partly to do with the European based Bilderberg group (Brzezinski), and their agenda's articulated through their agents, and partly to do with the fact that certain Anglophone American's accept the UK as the ancient Greece to ancient Rome. The British have a rich history of negative interference in Persian affairs starting in the early part of the twentieth century. Any policy that comes out of the UK in relation to Iran, must therefore by logic be negative.........business as usual.
In relation to the mad Jew one cannot say with certainty what role they had in toppling the Shah. Reason and logic garnered from the above facts would suggest that they had no role in toppling the Shah.........but consider the fact that America since Teddy Roosevelt has been in Jewish hands, and any American policy in relation to the nation of Persia, reasonably close to Israel, must logically receive approval from the Jews. Consider the fact that the MOSSAD regional head was actually in Tehran as Khomenei was stepping off the plane, and entering downtown central Tehran, shouting and cheering with his colleagues, in complete joy, incognito of course. (Trita Parsi: "Treacherous Alliance").
Consider the fact that until recently VEVAK, a mutation of the old SAVAK, had as its defacto head a Jew, by the name of Saeed Imami.......responsible for killing numerous intellectuals in Iran, and it is alleged the son of Khomenei, Ahmed. Consider the fact that the Democratic party (the primary Jewish political vehicle in America, at least then in the 1970's) was in power, and it is their high representative, Carter who is sent to the region to tell the Shah to 'democratize'...soon as he is elected, which he obediently did, with hundreds of political prisoners released.....who then go on to organize the 'Islamic Revolution' thereafter within a short time.
So Shlomo you tell me the Jew was not involved.....well yes of course....logically not.
The biggest loser out of all this was America and of course Iran........ stupid and unnecessary, for America.
So why choose France?
Khomenei had to be fixed in a place where his 'Islamic Revolution' could be organized with the 'right people', to get their agents based around him, and his revolution sold.......No Muslim country would want to play along with such man lest they get their own Khomeini, and so the 'Islamic Revolution' had to be launched from a Christian country, and Paris played host......Moulin Rouge, gay Paris.......etc....the irony and humor.
We see the large number of important Iranian personalities coming and going, between Tehran and France. Also the role of the French in assisting in killing politically exiled Iranians who aggressively organized real resistance to the mullahs of Iran. (Shahpour Baktiyar)
Britain and America couldn't play host, for obvious historical reasons. Though London has traditionally hosted a huge number of Islamic fundamentalist organizations and their hardcore members.
The BBC played a important role here, giving him extensive airtime, and circulating his bullshit, his weird theories and propaganda through the British World Service and the BBC Persian service, a key instrument of British foreign policy and hence intelligence, as relevant important 'news' for the informed public...........
Ayatollah Khomeini's book - The "Tahrirolvasyleh". The book is written in Arabic.
Here are just a few of the 'great leaders' quotes:
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomizing the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister... It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house, rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
"Wine and all intoxicating beverages are impure, but opium and hashish are not." (Iran currently has a few million drug addicts)
"If a man sodomies the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid."
"During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions."
"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field,"
"There are no jokes in Islam.
There is no humour in Islam.
There is no fun in Islam."
(And so true for millions of Iranians)
“A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”
“If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, an ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned.”
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as forplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed."
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." (Very logical!)
Yes I can see why the French might support him.
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." (Very logical!)
Yes I can see why the French might support him.
These are not the statements of a learned Islamic scholar, these are the words of a pervert; otherwise a Jewish Rabbi peaching to his flock.
So after 30 years of the 'Islamic Revolution' this book comes out by an Iranian journalist....better late than never!
________________________________
Iran's Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing
NEW YORK, Jul 26 (IPS) - In his new book on the covert history of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, award-winning journalist Roozbeh Mirebrahimi says that Western powers, including the United States, accelerated events by recognising and supporting religious revolutionary forces, forcing the shah to leave the country and averting a coup by Iran's army.
In 1953, the United States had deposed the popular government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet via a CIA-backed coup d'état. Anti-communist civilians and army officers supported the coup.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's second departure from Iran, almost a month before the victory of the revolution in February 1979, had dramatically raised concerns among the leaders of the revolution that Washington would try to stage another coup to bring back the shah, who had fled to the United States. However, diplomats who were at the centre of events say that an accommodation was reached between Western countries and Iran's Islamic clergy.
In an interview with IPS correspondent Omid Memarian, Mirebrahimi said that the role of the West in facilitating the revolution has been largely ignored, particularly by the Iranian government itself. His Farsi-language book, "Untold Aspects of the Iranian Revolution" (Khazaran, 2008) is based on an extensive interview with Abbas Amir-Entezam, the spokesman and deputy prime minister in the interim cabinet of Mehdi Bazargan in 1979.
Amir-Entezam, now Iran's longest-serving political prisoner, was an ambassador to Scandinavian countries during the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy. He was accused of spying for the U.S., arrested and sentenced to death in 1981. This was later reduced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Critics suggest the charges were retaliation against his early opposition to theocratic government in Iran.
IPS: There are rumours of a meeting between the French president's representative and Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris, prior to the revolution. What was the significance of this meeting?
RM: While Khomeini was in exile in Neauphle-le-Chateau near Paris and leading the revolution, he was asked by the current world powers to meet and to have a dialogue. He raised some demands, including the shah's removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d'état by the Iranian Army. On the other side of the table, the western powers had certain demands too. They were worried about the Soviet Union's empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran's oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.
IPS: What made these same western countries turn against Khomeini and others just months after 1979 Revolution?
RM: Western powers had been monitoring the political and social changes inside Iran for a long time. They had been trying to understand the internal changes in Iran through the forces they had in Iran or the people they would send to Iran, such as [former U.S. attorney general] Ramsey Clark. They had realised that Iranian society was on the verge of a fundamental change. They chose to accommodate this change. After recognising the opposition groups, they facilitated them with opportunities such as media coverage. Through this action, changes accelerated with an unexpected speed. In the next stage, in order to prevent the Soviet Union from taking advantage of these changes, amongst all existing opposition groups they chose the religious forces to stand against communism, which was anti-religion by nature.
IPS: But why after the revolution did they turn against them?
RM: I would say because of the revolutionary atmosphere inside Iran and actions of the empowered radicals, this relationship faced challenges.
IPS: Why did U.S. officials trust Ayatollah Khomeini enough to negotiate with him?
RM: [William H.] Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador to Iran, was keeping a very close watch over Iran's internal affairs and analysing all the developments. All the army and military affairs, all the macro-level decisions and reactions by the Shah's regime, all the activities of the religious forces, activities of the communists, and all other revolutionary forces were monitored by him. According to documents and books published in the United States and other western countries, around September 1978, four months before the revolution, it was clear that the shah could no longer stay, and that they should be looking for a way to reach an agreement with the opposition. All the contacts and dialogues picked up pace during this time. The religious forces that were surrounding Khomeini at the time were people like Yazdi, Bazargan, Bani sadr, Ghotbzadeh or among the clergy, people like Beheshti and Motahhari... They were educated and relatively technocratic and the west felt that they could rely on them. After the revolution, this trust and relationship remained intact until the invasion of the U.S. Embassy.
IPS: Why did the hostage-taking occur at a time when the new government under Ayatollah Khomeini had a normal relationship with the U.S.?
RM: Ayatollah Khomeini was opposed to radical actions such as invading the U.S. Embassy. For example, this was not the first time the U.S. Embassy was occupied. Right around those early days of the revolution, during the first 10 days, the U.S. Embassy was occupied for the first time by the leftist forces such as Khalgh and other parallel forces, but this received a very strong reaction from Ayatollah Khomeini who sent Ebrahim Yazdi to the embassy to get the revolutionary occupiers out of there. During the second incident, Khomeini was caught off-guard after the incident had already taken place. Pressure by the radicals at that time caused Khomeini to react by standing behind it. That incident caused Prime Minister Bazargan to resign. Prior to this incident, the relationship of the new government with the west was still quite normal. We should not forget that exactly one day after the revolution, the United States officially recognised the new government.
IPS: So what kind of an impact did all this have on the Islamic Revolution?
RM: This book has several features. First, it reexamines the Islamic Republic's portrayal of the history of the revolution, which is a red line in today's Iran. Secondly, Amir Entezam himself has always been a red line for the regime, which has tried so hard to erase his name from all official records. Thirdly, a person from the new generation, born in the year of the revolution, has done all of this research. And I'm very happy that after five years of all kinds of bans and obstacles, this book is getting published.
Taken from the Lberty Forum HERE
