Showing posts with label The Shah of Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Shah of Iran. Show all posts
Apr 19, 2008
A discussion with an Iranian about the Shah.
Perhaps it may seem inappropriate to criticize a man who cannot defend himself, but for practical purposes this is useful, in terms of a future post mullah regime, and where 'we' went wrong. Finally for all the faults the Shah actually possessed (how money of us would do better than him?), the main criminals in this saga are and always have been the mullahs in Iran who have destroyed their country for their Western masters, and the British. Period. The amount of mess this saga has created around the world, and could still cause.
I made some casual remarks on a blog about the Shah which resulted in the blog owners response, and my counter points.
______________________________________
"You seemingly have a strong need to criticize without thinking things through and putting things into context when analyzing them."
Just my point of view in a 'comment page'---it wasn't meant to be a deep analysis. A deep analysis with footnotes and quotes can be done. Instead it was a cursory passing comment/criticism of the Shah/what went wrong---I am not an Iranian political affairs expert.
" Simply because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean he then must "idolize your enemy". It's ironic that you chose to launch your mostly unsubstantiated tirade against the late Shah of Iran under this particular post - where my intent is not to idolize but to prove wrong popularized and unfounded claims by individuals such as those brought up by yourself."
No I don't think people who disagree with me are my enemies; My language is a little abrupt, but that is influenced by circumstances and personal experience. I appreciate the complex world is quite nuanced, and nothing we can say or do can change that; and yes I am quite well educated--------if you go to my site and read. I'm not an extremist, though I have been the victims of them. I don't think you idolize the Shah but that for you he represents what was good about Iran, in comparison to the mullahs of today. He is something to hold on to and cherish in comparison to the nightmare of the present regime. Yes he was better than the mullahs but that he had flaws, some of which were quite fundamental, which later contributed to his down fall. Its OK to talk about the Shah's flaws through our own perceptions and acknowledge without being a Ph.D students. Its not just a case that the British/Carter/French got rid of him, but that through his own flaws HE ALLOWED THEM TO TOPPLE HIM. My over all point is all Third World societies if they have the will and power to resist, can over come First World interference.
"It's ironic that you chose to launch your mostly unsubstantiated tirade against the late Shah of Iran under this particular post - where my intent is not to idolize but to prove wrong popularized and unfounded claims by individuals such as those brought up by yourself. If you took time and listened to the clips you'd quickly realize that your whole argument that modernization/progress were "superficial" is a long-shot with all the progress and diversification that was taking place during the short-lived Pahlavi Era."
Just my point of view on a comment section---I'm not sitting an undergraduate exam. I don't think you idolize him, though by having his picture on your blog that may be the perception of some. I wouldn't say reigning Iran from 1921 when Colonel Reza Khan actually came to power, to 1979 when the last Shah left, was a short period of time. In terms of Persian history it might be, but more than enough time to modernize a country. Malaysia---a Second World country now modernized in just two decades, during the 1980's/90's; South Korea 1970's/80's. Taiwan 1970's/80's. Singapore 1970's/80's. Hong Kong 1960's/70's. Japan 1870-1905. Reza Shah and his son had plenty of time, even with evil British interference. All these countries just mentioned achieved success in two decades, and yes it helped that they were largely not Muslim, and the British/Americans weren't working against them-------------but the point is it is a fallacy that you need 'time' to develop. Yes, the Persian race can do/achieve as much if not more than these countries, as the average Iranian's performance has shown in America. The trick is to crack the British problem---and then you are partially on your way to success. Once strong willed Iranians recognize this and organize, a solution will be found.
" You seem to be one of those who expected nothing but flawless miracles when in reality substantial change requires time and will inevitably endure pro's and con's. The Pahlavi Era lasted 50 years which in historical terms is very little. The Pahlavi's succeeded in this short time-frame in rescuing Iran from the disastrous economic, political, and social state brought about by the incompetent Qajar Dynasty."
Few regimes are perfect; they all have their flaws; obviously since the Shah ruled for 26 years he would have his fair share of faults, which would allow anybody like me to pick on. In addition if you are a dictatorship, and all substantive decisions are made by one person, again more than the usual amount of mistakes must be made--------I take it you are implying that he did make mistakes. Let us thus agree that the best form of government for Iran is a secular democracy, as long as the British/Israelis/Americans aren't out to get you. They ruled for 58 years; long enough time to shift Iran from a Third World society to the Second World.
" As for your statement that too much was concentrated around the oil industry I only refer you to the Shah's "White Revolution" and the programs that were adopted to steer Iran AWAY from being an oil-dependent economy of which some issues are addressed in the clips posted here. Again the foundations had been laid and things were progressing but obviously not as quickly as the high expectations from some of our compatriots."
Yes I repeat that he did not industrialize the economy away from oil; By 1979---- 90% of all exports were still from the sale of oil and gas------please check the stats, and come back to me on that one. Since the inception of the 'White Revolution' in the early sixties into 1979-----he had ample time to industrialize Iran if you take the model of the Asian Tiger economies. UNLIKE THE ASIAN TIGER ECONOMIES he had access to a huge oil sale windfall, but where were the great steel mills, machine tools factories; heavy engineering factories; power plants; chemical plants-------NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!----Where was the infrastructure?-----Iran in 1979, beyond the superficial glitter of Tehran was still a basket weaving country.
"Also it would not be fair nor rational of me to "idolize" anyone since every human being has his or her flaws. The Shah indeed had flaws and I can agree with you that in the beginning of his reign he was still young and indecisive (sorry I'm not a very good "idolater" even though you seem to think I am). Yes, he was not as strong-willed as his father. But what these two Great personalities in Iranian history had was love for their country and people and a strong will to improve the political, economical, and social standards in their motherland which both of them achieved to different lengths starting from scratch."
Know I don't think you idolize him. Yes we are all human, and we all make mistakes-----The Shah's picture half naked with a towel-----duh!---we are modern because we are half naked wearing just a towel ?---------was this his understanding of being modern ? As leader you must be decisive, and love for your country in itself is not enough to justify your rule over that country. I imagine of the 75 million Persians world wide at least 50 million must love their country-----------love of country is not a unique trait for a leader to have, though important.
"However if you want to criticize the late Shah you better do so on sound reasons. In the early 1970's the Shah had been diagnosed with cancer and up to the day that he passed away his health was deteriorating - being decisive and taking rational decisions in such a state is simply not something one should count on or expect. That is why I have said that from the time the late Shah was diagnosed with cancer he should have transferred powers to an Imperial Regency Council until his illness was cured or until the time the Crown Prince was fit to succeed him. However I believe the Shah had worked too hard to so easily abandon control of his honorable vision and plans for Iran. A negative issue related to this is that the late Shah had set up a system in which he was the ultimate decision-maker. Although this (centralized system) might have been a feasible option in the early years of building "modern Iran" it backfired in 1979 when Iranian Generals were not only ordered not to open fire on demonstrators but also because they weren't used to taking initiative on their own without seeking the counsel of the Shah and getting his go-ahead. Before addressing your other points let me make it clear here that after it had been deemed that society had reached political maturity I believe that many of the executive powers vested in the Shah should have been transferred to the Prime Minister and a transition to a real Constitutional Monarchy should have taken place."
Yes he was killed by the British defacto slowly--as articles in the Observer newspaper state, and probably his daughter too on her visit to London in 2001. As to the incidents of 8th September 1978, I do not know the full story---the mullahs say thousands of people were killed; perhaps as many as 15,000 by the Shah's security apparatus immediately before the Revolution whilst her Imperial Highness states it was just a few hundred, and that a lot of these were carried out by the mullahs to discredit the Shah, and SAVAK. Yes his decision making was deteriorating after the early seventies----so you acknowledge-----yes, decision/policy made by many is better than decision made by one---especially in a country like Iran.
"What me or you would have done when confronted with what you refer to as "British backed agitators" (i'd add that the U.S. Carter Administration was not that innocent either nor the French Government) might very well have been different but His Imperial Majesty's reason not to open fire on crowds was equally justifiable - that of HIM never keeping his throne by massacring Iranians and shedding Iranian blood - if he had done so then all these leftists/islamists and the misled crowds would indeed be correct with their slogans and references of the Shah being a "bloody dictator", which he was far from being."
I would do a lot better--but thats being wiser after the event I guess. I would have closed the British embassy in late 1977, and ejected all their citizens from Iran, and the same with the American embassy and their citizens. I wouldn't have sent 219,000 my students abroad to the UK/USA to be recruited as spies. I would have banned tourism. I would restrict all Iranians leaving and traveling abroad. I would installed powerful radio-transmitter jammers to prevent all broadcasting from the BBC, VOA...................a billion other Stalinist/North Korean counter espionage measures, WITHOUT being Communist. I would have established mass concentration camps capable of holding a few million people--------and executed a few mullahs, and burnt their bodies just to impress them. I would have eliminated Khomeini in Iraq, instead of wasting time killing his numerous sons. Then I would have turned on the Carter administration and sorted them out tactfully. He is still going around the world doing his pseudo- redemption work.
Nothing like doing a little fantasy fascist dictator game from a distance!
"You make an accusation (point 3) that the Shah executed one of his own cabinet members? Who was this? If you are referring to PM Hoveyda you are twisting the facts. PM Hoveyda along with other politicians were to be tried to ease tension created by the inflamed and radical demonstrators that were destabilizing the country (PM Hoveyda was accused of corruption if i'm not wrong). The trials would have proved the accusations, fed to the crowds, wrong and the tensions were supposed to have eased. However this didn't happen since in hindsight those who wanted the Shah removed didn't care of proving their baseless accusations but were rather only focused on removing the Shah. PM Hoveyda had the chance to leave his prison cell but chose to stay and face his accusations - which resulted in an Islamic kangaroo court in which a muslim cleric in the newly installed Islamic Republic issued his death sentence without any due process."
This episode is unclear, but in essence you protect your own through thick and thin, and don't throw them to the wolves when the going gets tough.
"Knowing the true intents of the architects of the Islamic takeover or so-called "Islamic Revolution" do you honestly think that social welfare programs would have averted what was about to take place? Seriously? Please do give some due consideration to your recommendations - this issue is much more complex than your recommendations suggest."
Lack of food has triggered many revolutions. When people have no food they become senseless, desperate, and loose their inhibitions. The French Revolution 1789 was triggered by lack of food; as was the Russian revolution of 1917/18-------too many troops had been mobilized to fight up the front, so that nobody was left to till the land. The stupid mullahs recognize this fact, and hence they make basic food virtually free in parts of Iran and heavily subsidies it to the poor. We are not talking of huge amounts of money here, in comparison to the Shah's defense budget, but a little organization and thoughtful planning. Sometimes it is the gesture that counts. Social welfare work could have softened the pressure of the artificial revolution created by the British/Americans, so that the Shah could have handled the situation from a stronger position.
"You also accuse his late Majesty of spending too much on arms. If it wasn't for those arms you'd probably be speaking arabic today and living under Saddam Hussein's rule. It was the Imperial Armed Forces of Iran formed by Reza Shah the Great and his son Shahanshah Aryamehr who defeated the Iraqi troops and defended the territorial integrity of Iran during the 8 year war. Iran is a country of strategic importance and being able to defend itself is an issue of top priority and your accusations don't do justice to the realities faced by our country."
Please don't exaggerate! Don't give me that----------The Shah's defense budget was a big fraud -----allowing his cronies to make money buying none-existent military hardware. Do you know what makes a nation's great military? Do you think simply importing state of the art equipment from first world nations turns you into a super power. If that were so, Saudi Arabia would be a super power by now, but isn't. There are many complex factors which contribute to making a great military. 60% of the Shah's military personnel had deserted by September 1980, when the Gulf war started, and from my understanding a good deal of the initial fighting was done by volunteers and not regular forces-------Revolutionary Guards, Basij and local people, with what ever they could muster--including sticks, knives, rocks..........the conventional military was conspicuously absent, and the mullahs wouldn't allow former exiled officers to fight for their country. As to Saddam invading ALL Iran----come on, his objective was Khuzestan, the Arabic part of Iran, with its oil, thats all. As a military leader he was mercifully incompetent, and his invading force of 500,000 were not very effective, so that the rag tag Iranian defense force with mixed units of military, paramilitary and civilians were able to eventually push back the Iraqis to the border.
"It's easy to criticize in hindsight and putting things out of context of the times they actually occurred in only serves to distort the real picture even more, I believe you should take these things into consideration in your analysis."
Yes indeed hindsight would be wonderful. My brief comments was NOT analysis, it was passing comment----------analysis, serious analysis is where you give references for your assertions, with footnotes. I don't think I am important enough, or widely read enough for me to be able to 'distort the picture' whatever that may be.
Failures of the Shah and others.
Reasons for the Iranian "Islamic revolution"
The article below was taken from wikipedia and attempts to explain why the Shah was toppled, and the mistakes he and others in the full Iranian political spectrum running up to his overthrow made. There are better sources, but for me this is a start as I analyze the whole area in depth a little bit more, covering the fall of the Shah to the sheer criminality of the mullahs, and their eventual over throw in the near future.
In that sense it is natural to ask where the Shah went wrong. The wikipedia article does not cover the whole aspect of the so called misnomer 'Islamic revolution' which was carefully directed by Western Intelligence agencies, as I have argued here on this blog consistently, but I didn't expect it to, as such a theory would undermine a major pillar of Western geo-strategic policy in relation to the Greater Middle East, and in a sense the rest of the world since the seventies.
Just imagine if one day in the future we were to find out that Khomeini rather than being the courageous Third World spiritual leader that he is portrayed was in fact nothing more than another amoral British intelligence asset, who in the pursuit of power for his own ends sacrificed his country and its interests, responsible for the death of a million men and children in the war front, and the death of hundreds of thousands of political activists. Or the fact that al-Qaeda does not exist, but is in reality an elaborately constructed hoax/front/boogie for explaining covert Israeli, and Western intelligence operations against Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
(Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, IRAQ, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, AFGHANISTAN,Turkey, SOMALIA, Philippines,USA,9/11----an inside operation with Israeli assistance, and finally the UK,7/7------inside operation with Israeli assistance. As you can see from this small list the main VICTIMS of "al-Qaeda" have been MUSLIM countries)
I hope many other writers join me in this useful pure endevour around the world as we all seek genuine peace and justice which frees us to address the real issues which so much in reality vexes the world, which were to an extent being addressed, until 9/11.
______________________________________
The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution,[1][2][3][4][5][6] Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi) was the revolution that transformed Iran from a monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic.[7] It has been called "the third great revolution in history," following the French and Bolshevik revolutions,[8] and an event that "made Islamic fundamentalism a political force ... from MoroccoMalaysia."[9]
(blogger---another good reason why the 'Iranian Islamic revolution' needs to be debunked; the number of misguided people in Third World societies who think that it was a genuine great peoples revolution, against a Western backed oppressor---we need to see what the Shah did for his country, against what the mullahs have actually done since)
Although some might argue that the revolution is still ongoing, its time span can be said to have begun in January 1978 with the first major demonstrations to overthrow the Shah,[10] and concluded with the approval of the new theocratic Constitution — whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country — in December 1979. In between, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled Iran in January 1979 after strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, and on February 1, 1979( Blogger: Co-incidentally and of course not related this date is also my D.O.B) Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians. (Blogger: A few million rent a mobs with the clueless sheep can be organized as they did in the 1953 coup against PM Mosaddegh, though of course not in the millions back in 1953, but the point is the presence of a few million greeting Khomeini out of a population of 38 million is not in itself conclusive proof of a popular "Popular peoples Islamic revolution", but merely that the Western intelligence agencies and their local Iranian dogs were well organized)[11]
The final collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty occurred shortly after on February 11 when Iran's military declared itself "neutral" after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. (Blogger: No 'The rebels' did not over whelm the military consisting of 400,000 well armed men who were totally loyal to the Shah--60% of them subsequently deserted after the Islamic revolution. That is a piece of classic historical disinformation to cover the fact that top NATO commanders and the USA ambassador in Tehran told the Iranian army to stand down and not get involved, as they should have. Pretty much what the Americans did with General Musharaf in Pakistan more recently, when top Corps commanders did not back him in his declaration of Marshal law, as these senior Pakistani officers preferred to take orders from Washington, and visiting interfering officials from the USA-----how many times did Fallon go over there in 2007?)
Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979[12](blogger: Obviously given the date the British handlers had a cocky sense of humor. They seem to have a fascination for dates in a masturbatory kind of a way, and one can imagine them and their officials huddled around the QuiJa board in Somerset House in their suspenders and bowler hats in the dead of Midnight, on Kosher Saturday, with copies of the ancient Babylonian Talmud for guidance, carefully seeking out British state policy in a Harry Potter kind of way, and creating much mischief once again around the world)
when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.(blogger: eerr ahem---actually there is such a thing as voter fraud, which we find in America----when you have a Iranian population of 38 million in 1979, with probably 15 million actually eligible to vote, but the referendum registers 21 million plus voters, with one choice---yes or no for a Islamic republic, and all of them regardless of their political affiliation, Monarchists, Communists, and 'can't be bothered to vote today'...........somehow all voted for the Islamic regime! Then it seems something is profoundly wrong here; More like over egging the pudding)
The revolution was unique for the surprise it created throughout the world:[13] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution — defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or a disgruntled military;(blogger: You don't say!)[14] produced profound change at great speed;[15] overthrew a regime thought to be heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services;(blogger: what happens when powerful regime insiders within the security apparatus such as SAVAK are turned against the Shah by Western intelligence)[16][17] and replaced an ancient monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). Its outcome — an Islamic Republic "under the guidance of an 80-year-old exiled religious scholar from Qom" — was, as one scholar put it, "clearly an occurrence that had to be explained.…"[18]
Not so unique but more intense is the dispute over the revolution's results. For some it was an era of heroism and sacrifice that brought forth nothing less than the nucleus of a world Islamic state — "a perfect model of splendid, humane, and divine life… for all the peoples of the world."[19] At the other extreme, disillusioned Iranians explain the revolution as a time when "for a few years we all lost our minds,"[20] and as a system that, "promised us heaven, but ... created a hell on earth." [21]
________________________________________________
Explanations advanced for why the revolution happened and took the form it did include actions of the Shah and the mistakes and successes of the different political forces:
Errors of the Shah
- His strong policy of Westernization and close identification with a Western power (the United States) despite the resulting clash with Iran's Shi'a Muslim identity.[22] This included his original installation by Allied Powers and assistance from the CIA in 1953 to restore him to the throne, the use of large numbers of US military advisers and technicians and the capitulation or granting of diplomatic immunity from prosecution to them, all of which led nationalistic Iranians, both religious and secular[23] to consider him a puppet of the West;[24][25]
- Extravagance, corruption and elitism (both real and perceived) of the Shah's policies and of his royal court;[26][27]
- His failure to cultivate supporters in the Shi'a religious leadership to counter Khomeini's campaign against him;[28][29]
- Focusing of government surveillance and repression on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, the communist Tudeh Party of Iran, and other leftist groups, while the more popular religious opposition organized, grew and gradually undermined the authority of his regime;[30][31][32]
- Authoritarian tendencies that violated the Iran Constitution of 1906,[33][34] including repression of dissent by security services like the SAVAK,[35] followed by appeasement and appearance of weakness as the revolution gained momentum;[36][37]
- Failure of Mr. Deschamps overly ambitious 1974 economic program to meet expectations raised by the oil revenue windfall. Bottlenecks, shortages and inflation were followed by austerity measures, attacks on alleged price gougers and black-markets, that angered both the bazaar and the masses;[38]
- His antagonizing of formerly apolitical Iranians, especially merchants of the bazaars, with the creation of a single party political monopoly (the Rastakhiz Party), with compulsory membership and dues, and general aggressive interference in the political, economic, and religious concerns of people's lives;[39]
- His overconfident neglect of governance and preoccupation with playing the world statesman during the oil boom,[40] followed by a loss of self-confidence and resolution[36] and a weakening of his health from cancer[41] as the revolution gained momentum;
- Underestimation of the strength of the opposition — particularly religious opposition — and the failure to offer either enough carrots or sticks. Efforts to please the opposition were "too little too late,"[42][36] but no concerted counter-attack was made against the revolutionaries either.
- Failure to prepare and train security forces for dealing with protest and demonstration, failure to use crowd control without excessive violence[43] (troops used live ammunition, not Plexiglas shields or water cannons),[44] and use of the military officer corps more as a powerbase to be pampered than as a force to control threats to security;[45]
- The personalised nature of the Shah's government, where prevention of any possible competitor to the monarch trumped efficient and effective government and led to the crown's cultivation of divisions within the army and the political elite,[46] and ultimately to a lack of support for the regime by its natural allies when needed most (thousands of upper and middle class Iranians and their money left Iran during the beginning of the revolution).[47]
Failures and successes of other political forces:
- Overconfidence of the secularists and modernist Muslims, of liberals and leftists in their power and ability to control the revolution;[48]
- Shrewdness of the Ayatollah Khomeini in winning the support of these liberals and leftists when he needed them to overthrow the Shah by underplaying his hand and avoiding issues (such as rule by clerics or "guardianship of the jurists") he planned to implement but knew would be a deal breaker for his more secular and modernist Muslim allies;[49]
- Cleverness and energy of Khomeini's organizers in Iran who outwitted the Shah's security forces and won broad support with their tactical ingenuity — amongst other things, convincing Iranians that the Shah's security was more brutal than it was;[45]
- The Ayatollah Khomeini's self-confidence, charisma, and most importantly his ability to cast himself as following in the footsteps of the beloved Shi'a Imam Husayn ibn Ali, while portraying the Shah as a modern day version of Hussein's foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I;[50] and so to be seen by millions as a savior figure,[51] and inspiring hundreds to feats of martyrdom fighting the regime.
- Policies of the American government, which helped create an image of the Shah as American "puppet" with their high profile and the 1953 subversion of the government on his behalf, but helped trigger the revolution by pressuring the Shah to liberalize, and then finally may have heightened the radicalism of the revolution by failing to read its nature accurately (particularly the goals of Khomeini), or to clearly respond to it[52][53][54]
OK that was wikipedia, and my side comments. Here are further very superficial random criticisms of the Shah by me, in response to a comment praising him on a blog:
Lets not idolize a man who ran away from his, nation, people, throne and responsibilities twice; once in 1951 and again in 1979. As a king you stand your ground and face the music, WITH THE PEOPLE.
He was a weak minded playboy, and a shadow of his father (Bush junior). However he was far better then the mullahs, but that is not a complement, as the mullahs are British run DOGS.
1. He was indecisive, in the late seventies when SAVAK was telling him who was destabilizing him, he should have taken strong counter measures against the British and Americans, but instead he was going, why? Why? Why? Please don't hurt me, I'm your friend, please don't hurt me.
2. He should have been more ruthless with the British backed agitators in Iran, but instead he flipped between being firm sometime, and on other occasions giving in to the rent a mob. This gave mixed messages to his true followers in Iran, and was read as weakness by the opposition.
3. He punished one of his own cabinet members to please the opposition---supreme cowardice!
4. He should have transfered all the money of Iran deposited in Western banks into Iran, to fund social welfare programs and appease the crowds in 1978, and rent a mobs by the British/Americans. Instead when he left power, there were $10-15 billion still deposited in Western banks belonging to Iran. At todays prices its worth about $40-60? billion, which has since been frozen by the West and not returned to Iran.
5, Whilst in exile he did not organize a counter coup. He gracefully WITHOUT A FIGHT let the mullah puppets into power; the same with his son. Has the Shah's son to date organized one single coup against the mullahs? No.
6. He did not take any measures to protect his people, who were subsequently executed by the mullahs-----a real monarch protects his subjects especially those close to him; he should have seen to their safety instead of allowing them to become 'sheep to the slaughter' ---such a waste of talented people for Iran.
7. He did not diversify the economy away from oil, so that when BP embargoed his country YET AGAIN as in the early 1950's, by refusing to sell 3 million barrels in 1978, his finances experienced major problems in 1978.
8. He did not understand economics and his modernization programs were superficial------no real industrialization, especially focusing on non-oil sectors.
9. He spent between 1969-79---some $30 billion on arms imports of unnecessary weapons systems which whilst good profits for the American arms industry, was not what Iran needed. He bought them at highly inflated prices----80 F-14 Tomcats for $3.8 billion!1974 --to save Grumman the USA manufacture from bankruptcy----excuse me, who is he suppose to serve? He didn't build up a credible domestic arms industry. Finally on this point he was spending 15% of the GDP ON defense---too high, when Iran had no real external threat, and he had signed an agreement with Saddam via the Algiers accord for better relations. The army was too small, even though such a huge amount was being spent---285,000 by 1979,when it should have been twice as large, and the air force 100,000, his personal hobby horse-way too large.
10. He should have taken stronger counter measures against the Carter administration, when he saw what was happening, and not submitted passively.
11. When you are a leader of a Third World Muslim country, you have got to keep your mouth shut, and not say untoward things against the 'sensitive' things in the West, or even the paranoid Israelis/Jews. On the one hand he recognized Israel diplomatically, gave them oil at preferential rates, bought most of his American arms through Israeli middlemen, allowed one of his most sensitive state institutions to be trained by them--SAVAK. Then he blows it all by going on air, in a matter of fact way and telling one of them that the Jewish lobby has too much power, and its not good for Israel in the long term! Which objectively speaking may be correct, and may even be genuinely well meant from an ally, but in the crazy paranoid world of Zionist (Likud) politics it would be wholly unwelcome, on air. Did the Israelis offer him sanctuary after his fall?
12. The Shah gave $1,000 billion to the British in 1976, to save the country from bankruptcy, when the UK had to go cap in hand to the IMF. So if the Shah knew the British were at it again against Iran, why didn't he use this fact to coerce them, to gain leverage? The British in pursuit of their empire and business interests can be slippery amoral creatures (read the previous blogs/articles), but like any other country they do have to maintain a public face in the international community. Why didn't the Shah state loudly to the world with personal interviews with the global media how the 'ungrateful British' were destabilizing his country, and how they were aggressively negotiating with him over oil sales? Cry and you cry alone, so why didn't he mobilize the world to his point of view?
13. The level of corruption in the Shah's regime was appalling. Just appalling. What made it worse was that it was accepted by the Shah as normal. He knew which ministers were corrupt, and what they were up to, but he did not do anything because they were deemed loyal to him personally; that is not a good system of government, and will eventually be doomed. His defense budget was bogus, as much as the American defense budget is now---a huge gravy train which benefited a few well placed officials buying phantom arms that never materialized, but enriched certain officials who later fled the country with the nations assets. In one sense the level of corruption in the Shah's Iran is what you would find in many other Third World countries---Saudi Arabia for example, where the misuse is worse, however when your puppet master goes on a whim against you, corruption within the state structure is a weakness don't need at such a critical time.
14. One man trying to run everything, just not physically possible--he should have decentralized and delegated his responsibilities. Then less mistakes would have been made.
___________________________________________
Feb 21, 2008
Response to some points on Iran.
"some of your statements bear some truth but you sound very naive. Especially when you say the shah should have been more nationalistic since he was a puppet under control"
Yes he was a puppet. He was first installed in the 1940's as a child, by the British, and again in 1953, by the British and Americans. But you know that puppets come in various shapes and sizes. Most puppets being human don't follow their masters wishes 100%.
Qaddafi was installed by the USA/UK, because they made a hard realistic assessment that King Idris of Libya couldn't survive long in power sandwiched as he was by Socialist Egypt and Tunisia geographically, so in 1969 they engineered a 'coup' and installed their new puppet, who had received military/intelligence training in both the USA and UK, Colonel Qaddafi (Homosexual psychopath with an acute sense of humor).....---the rest is history.
Much has been said about Qaddafi, but I don't personally think he conducted any terrorism against Western targets as he had no real incentive, using his state organs, beyond supporting some 'liberation' movements around the world. He was however for the West and Israel an useful poster child for Arab terrorism, together with MOSSAD run Abu Nidal from the 1970's-----culminating in 9/11 a false flag ops by the usual suspects. The only terrorism he practised was against his own people, to keep himself in power, and again not in the scale of say Saddam Hussain (Megalomaniac psychopath-----Western intelligence sure do pick em). He was sending his wife and children for their education to the UK, as if business was normal--during the nineties.
Qaddafi steered his own policy, and tried to articulate and mark himself out in response to Arab nationalism ignited by Nasser, and things only got worse when the Americans decided to accuse him of terrorism, and they subsequently bombed him in 1986. He responded partly by arming the IRA, against the British for providing the bases for bombing Libya---F-111. Which consequently resulted in the British trying to over throw him using Islamic Fundamentalists in the 1990's----clearly documented---He survived because he was security savvy. Now the British and Americans are friends with him again. So my point is you can have policy differences with your puppet master, and survive in power, EVEN without following the extreme policies of Qaddafi.
The Shah was not security savvy, he was essentially a weak minded playboy with some good intentions for his country, but very naive, and he paid for it. You must always take into account and anticipate the whimsy of your puppet master as a Third World leader who sponsored you into power ----there are a few million waiting in the queue.
Qaddafi is still a puppet of theirs, and his children are educated in that country, and no doubt they have excellent English accents. Mugabe too is their puppet, and he could be killing lawful white farmers driving them out of the country, and of course running the economy into ruin, where at one time it was an effectively managed African nation, with 500,000 whites co-existing peacefully. He can do all manner of ugly things, and say ugly things but he will still remain in power. Whilst his wife regularly visits London to do her shopping, with the impoverished nations money.
So you see a puppet can do all sorts of things, and not follow their master. Perhaps this is an example that the world has moved on, and has become more diverse, nuanced and more complex. We are no longer frozen in the nineteenth century, where a few colonial soldiers taught the grass skirted thing what for.
"or when you infer that Saddam's war on Iran wasn't on behalf of western powers"
I don't infer that it wasn't on behalf of Western powers; Saddam was their puppet, carefully groomed since the early 1960's as new documents and articles show.
This was a classic case of weakening two sides to take them over. But the opportunity for entertaining the idea of attacking Iran in the first place would not have come about if the Shah was still in power, with his armed forces intact. Even puppets have to rationalize sometimes.
Jordan is a puppet state clearly (close to the UK/USA), but does that mean tomorrow they mobilize their little effective army and attack Ba'athist Socialist Syria---of course not---the Jordanian puppet rationalizes his chances.
Saddam the western puppet rationalized in 1980 that with the Iranian armed forces which had disintegrated with 60% desertion, with American/British backing and encouragement, and French backing and encouragement, and Russian backing and encouragement (70%--80% of his conventional arms was Russian), and GULF GCC backing and encouragement, he felt that he had a fair chance. So just after the Islamic Revolution, in 1980 he invaded Iran with 500,000 troops. By this action he basically saved the mullahs, as the mullahs could now rally the country behind them. If the West really wanted to get rid of the mullahs, all they had to do was impose 100% sanctions; and covert ops financing opposition groups----------with propaganda, as in 1953, classic textbook simple overthrow of a regime which is popular with the people------BUT the West wasn't interested in getting rid of the mullahs of Iran then in 1980, whom they had just installed, what their objective was to weaken both countries by providing/supporting poor governments and continued war between the two. With the intention that sometime in the future they could invade as 'liberators'.
"or that the Brits still control Iran,then why would the west want to attack Iran?"
The West is not one united entity. There are considerable policy differences as to what policies to pursue--in relation to international relations. Even within the British elite there are considerable policy differences, between what the Jews of London within 'The City' think and what other elite groups within Britian think. Internationally, what 'the Brits' think is not necessary how 'Washington' thinks, or how the unhinged 'Israelis' think, or how traditionally the French without Sarkozy think. Their perspectives are diverse.
So whilst the British try and maintain their hold over mullah Iran, quite successfully one may add for 29 years, others obviously in the West do not want this status quo. Remember the genocide in Rwanda was the result of competing interests between French intelligence and British intelligence. Around the world you can find examples of competition for control of nations and, and their resources by the West which manifest themselves in local conflict.
Also the fact that the British control Iran is not something they would want to advertise to everybody----because the next logical question from interested parties is who are the agents of the British in Iran, and what are the means of control by which the British exercise power over Iran (organizationally), and how can one compromise these assets to ones advantage.
Britain first became involved in Persia in the early 17th century, and very active politically and economically in the early parts of the 20th century. Let me tell you quickly and very briefly about Tipu Sultan, a character the British empire preferred to forget, and if remembered briefly, than only as another cruel Asian despot. In fact he was an enlightened leader of a medium sized South Indian state called Karnataka. He was an enlightened good ruler effectively ruling a non-Muslim state.
He was an innovator of technology, and was the first in the world to use missiles en masse in the field of war. He with his father fought four wars against the Jewish London based East India company; 1st Mysore war 1767-69; 2nd Mysore war 1780-84; 3rd Mysore war 1790-92; 4th Mysore war 1798-99. He was a major obstacle to British expansion in South Asia, and his little state had been responsible for the death of thousands of colonial soldiers and generals. By the fourth war things were going against him and prior to that he sought the alliance of Revolutionary France, Ottoman Turkey and Afghanistan, but not Persia. Napoleon Bonaparte landed in Egypt in 1798, with the objective of joining forces with Tipu Sultan. The British sunk his navy, so he couldn't sail any where least of all to India, and the Ottoman Turks naturally took exception to their country being used as a staging post without being asked, and having part of their country being treated like an occupation territory------so two possible allies neutralised.
Finally in 1798 the British persuaded the Persian Shah to attack Afghanistan, which prevented the Afghans from joining forces with Tipu Sultan. Yes, as far back as 210 years ago the British were exercising considerable power in Persia. I do not know what influence the British exercised over Nadir Shah of Persia, who effectively ended the Mughal empire, by attacking India in 1737, and ransacking Delhi and massacring its residents.
point being that they have built up a vast network of local Iranian agents---Colonel Reza Khan, the Shah's father was installed by the BRITISH in 1921, as the point man for all of Persia, after the departure of the Russians in the North of the country----He was removed from power by the BRITISH in 1941, and then the BRITISH installed his son in the 1940's, and again in 1953 with American help. Then the BRITISH decided that he outlasted his usefulness, i.e. he was developing Iran too quickly----------Article in Time magazine called Iran the New Japan in the early Seventies (Britain has always been a Islamophobic nation---which has waged cold covert/hot overt wars against Muslim nations-----Iran is another example, using Islamic fundamentalists---cold covert war. Since the advent of Jews in the British power structure in the UK from the middle of the seventeenth century, allowed reentry by Oliver Cromwell, with their prominence in London in 'The City' , and the creation of Israel, this has added to the British Islamophobic dimension)
and so the BRITISH removed the Shah in 1978-79, using the Americans again, through their Rothschild CFR/Trilateral commission agents in the Carter administration.
So now we have two possible scenarios over Iran. The British London Jew model (billionaire criminal Jews from Russia and Israel have been congregating there for a couple years now, the centre of global evil) which means continued mullah misrule, international theatrics by the mullah's and their hand picked 'elected' cronies; human trafficking/slavery from Iran mainly into the Gulf; narcotic epidemics within Iran the like of which Iran has never experienced; Capitol flight into the UK, Canada and other countries from Iran-----$100's billions; the flight of the Middle Class.................or the Israeli Jew neocon model, which means the attack of Iran by Israel and America, possibly with nukes, and the dismemberment of the country into small pieces, in order to facilitate Eretz Israel. Judging by the presidential election nominees in America, that seems to be the direction America is heading.
Apr 19, 2007
The fall of the Shah, oil politics and the Aryan question.
I believe that there is a link between the Carter administration covertly supplying the Afghan Islamic fundamentalists from JULY 1979, which progressed to the Taliban/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the early 1990's, and the fall of the Shah in February 1979. Why? Because the two countries are next to each other? No, not just that. Why did the Carter administration pressurize the Shah to be more democratic and soft around 1977? Why didn't the Carter administration give the same message to the Saudis, many times worse than the Shah? Or the Argentinian military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Brazilian military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Chilean military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Marcos regime in the Philippines which the Americans installed? Why did the Carter administration topple the Democratic government of Bhutto, later executed, and bring in the military in Pakistan, if they believed in Democracy so much? The point is as with the present there was no noble mission for Democracy, but policies to bolster Israel's position vis. Muslim countries.
States often say one thing, but often they can have an hidden agenda for their actions and speeches. The rumour why Carter really wanted the Shah removed are many fold:
1. That the Shah it is alleged gave large sums of money to the American Republican party during the late sixties and early seventies, and when Carter came to power and found out, he wanted revenge. So he destabilized the Shah 1977-79, and humiliated him, an ally of America for 27 years, when he was very ill, by not allowing him to stay in the USA for treatment. There is an element of nasty petty meanness to this, and for me an indication that the Carter administration did indeed topple the Shah.
2. The Shah was instrumental in the oil price rises in the 1970's. During the sixties the Shah resisted pressure to raise oil prices. As the biggest OPEC exporter Iran had a critical role. By the early seventies some of his more well informed advisers started telling him that the oil that was being sold, was way under priced from its real market value. The global oil industry had been for a long time controlled by a the 'Seven Sisters'--Western oil companies, and the Shah's economic advisers told him that the $2.8 a barrel price around 1971, was tantamount to selling the oil at mineral water rates, with the bulk of the profits from the 'mineral water sale' going to Western oil companies. The 1973 Arab/Israeli war, and the Arab defeat again, with the Americans overtly supporting the Israelis, the Arab OPEC producers decided to act, and the Shah for different reasons joined them. In 1971 it was $2.8 a barrel, and by 1979 it was I think around $40 a barrel. A lot of people in the West were not happy with the Shah as the largest OPEC producer--5.5 million barrels.
The British were not very happy especially, as their main oil company BP still managed and sold most of Iran's oil by 1979. A British agent/Foreign Office official/academic/Zionist Professor by the name of Bernard Lewis was sent to Washington to 'soften up' the Americans with his various spurious arguments that Muslims really aren't capable of running their own countries and that they are better off being managed directly by benevolent Western colonial rule, rather like the British Empire.
To help this process you need to use Islamic fundamentalists to destabilise Muslim countries covertly, or overtly, and then go in, invade the country and 'liberate' it from the Islamic fundamentalists (Afghanistan being the perfect example------22 year process, Iran, 28 year process ?). This is called 'The Bernard Lewis plan' and the man who originally coined the false term 'Clash of civilisation'. The plan calls for the Balkanisation of Muslim countries along ethnic lines, whilst Israel is allowed to build its empire of 'Eretz Israel'. The Godfather to the neo-con movement, whose disciples have been responsible for the global security problems around the world. A significant but elusive figure.
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article4.html http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ralph_Peters_solution_to_Mideast.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
The Republican administration obviously were not going to buy this lie as they were close to the Shah, and they had promoted him to the 'Policeman of the Gulf'. The American arms industry wasn't doing to badly selling $30 billion worth of arms to the Shah. The Shah was a good reliable ally in a strategic position, who basically did what he was told by the Americans. The benefits of such a relationship were far greater to the Americans than it was to Iran. Then Carter came in via the Jewish dominated Democratic party and the situation suddenly changed.
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/26/reviews/971026.26gwertzt.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9703.htm
By the way some American oil analysts are now saying that $100 a barrel may be sustainable and possible in the future which will not harm the global economy and the oil industry, as long as it is done gradually. So Iran had some far sighted and good economists. I hope the mullahs have not frightened off any of the modern ones into California who go around earning a living driving taxis, and calling themselves 'Persians'.
3. Iran I believe translated means 'Land of the Aryans'. The Shah may have called himself the 'Light of all Aryans'. Jews who are a little basic and take things literally (Extremist Zionists) believe that the Aryan race caused the Holocaust 1933-45--Hitler/Nazism. Some obviously flushed with American power and unquestioned American backing may want to settle scores. This reminds me of American soldiers shooting on sight surrendering German soldiers in Normandy and saying, 'You nasty Japs'. In fact they were Tartars from the Ukraine. As with the Tartars its a case of mistaken identity.
The term Aryan has very different meanings in Europe and Asia. In Europe the term 'Aryan' is a racial superiority statement. The Master race. An idea/Unfounded myth not based on reality, cobbled together by a regime headed by a fruity megalomaniac without knowledge of the actual facts, a mere 80 years ago, and based on a mishmash of ideas and names from formidable thinkers from Germany, Nietzsche, Hegel and Kant, wrongly taken out of context, and applied with such appalling results.'I am Aryan and I am better than any body else, and further more I can treat others with less respect'.
The Holocaust was the product of European colonialism in the eighteenth and ninetieth century, and is not the responsibility of the real Aryans residing in Asia, the belief that non-Europeans are inferior and to be treated with less respect--Jews, Gypsies and of course Eurasian Slavs. Remember that 50-70 million people died in Asia, Africa and Central and South America when under colonial rule.
In Asia where the real Aryans originate from, Central Asia, and where 80% of all 'Iranians' live, it is an ethnic statement; 'I am Iranian' , ' I am Vietnamese' " I am Chinese" etc. No better than any body else. Now of course most Aryans refer to themselves as Indian, Pakistani, Afghan, Central Asian, Ukrainian etc. In Asia the long term existence of Aryan's is a historical fact and not merely an idea. Persia has been called Iran for at least four thousand years. The same with Afghanistan (Ariana) and the Subcontinent. When Aryan's in significant numbers move into an area they make their presence felt naturally, in various ways. Thus when Aryan's moved into India they called their new land 'Aryavarta' a term a few thousand years old. In Afghanistan the land was called 'Ariana' over a thousand years ago. They write poetry and other thousand year old scriptures such as the 'Mahabhrata' 'Rig Veda' or the 'Shahname'. They build fire temples or the like found in Iran and Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan . Such basic facts don't exists in Europe.
But some Jews with simple minds may have taken a different message when they read about Iran's Aryan background, and so they toppled the Shah, and installed mullahs in his place, the primary purpose of the mullahs is the propagation of what is essentially an Arab/Jewish religion--Islam. The same in neighbouring Afghanistan "Ariana'. Two steps behind the Jews on this issue are a very small number of Europeans who do believe what Hitler said that Aryans are in certain parts of Europe only-----a historical fact not provable, beyond the fact that certain Iranian tribes crossed from the Ukraine into Hungary and Bulgaria . Iranians as a race are not tall, blond and blue eyed.
The greater Islamic and thus Arabic Iran and Afghanistan become the more satisfaction is gained by a few Europeans and the Jews for two different reasons. In small pockets of the West it is to do with the male ego and racism. With the Jews it is to do with religious fantasy, and the desire to expand Israel's boundaries, and vengeance. Israel was always a little geographical strip throughout history, and 'Eretz' Israel was an idea.
The Jew confident that he controls America now feels strong enough to turn this religious fantasy into reality via America and Europe (NATO troops are doubling in Afghanistan---getting into a permanent mode). But ultimately this mad Jewish idea must fail because you can't conquer states after states, and Lebanonise them without a fight. Hence the Jews propaganda that fighting 'terrorism' will take many years, perhaps a century. What they are really saying is attacking more Muslim states one by one will take a long time, because the Americans and the Israelis obviously need to catch their breath, after attacking another MUSLIM COUNTRY: Afghanistan 2001; Iraq 2003; Somalia 2006.....................Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,...........and so on.
The facts are simple, Aryans did not cause the Holocaust. Nearly all Aryan countries are dirt poor and quite unremarkable. Their existence in Asia should not cause any insecurities or unwarranted anxieties elsewhere, though I appreciate that certain groups are experts at creating animosity out of nothing, diversion and playing groups against each other whilst they carry out their own real interests uninterrupted and unhindered.
What educated Iranian's have to ask are three small questions:
1. Why are the mullah in power with such a poor record of government? Why did they come into power in 1979? Why is Iran the only country in the world run by religious figures when 192 other UN general assembly countries are not? Iran is not a Democracy, but has the facade of a Democracy. Real power resides with the politically inept/disastrous mullah's via the Guardian Council, The Expediency Council, and the Supreme Leader. Controlling who is a candidate in elections is tantamount to controlling elections outcomes. Of course because of the Israelis, real Democracy could not function in the Middle East and one has only to look at Iraq, the situation in Palestine where they have captured a whole democratically elected cabinet, and finally Lebanon where they are destroying a democracy to be replaced by splinter groups of extreme groups running a none state without infrastructure. Once you have asked yourself this question then ask the next.
2. Are Iranians by nature very religious? Are they fervently more Muslim than say Arabs who do not have mullahs running their country? The answer is of course no! Iranian females have more freedom than their Arab female counterparts even under mullah rule.
3. Then you must ask yourself how on earth the mullahs came to power in the first place in Iran? who helped them into power? For what purpose? Who sustains them in power now with such crazy policies? Fidel Castro spent many years in political and armed struggle before he came to power in 1959. The Communists in Russia spent many decades in political and armed struggle before they finally controlled most of the former Russian empire in 1921. The Communists in China spent many years in political and armed struggle before they came to power in 1949. How did the politically inexperienced mullah's, without any political organisation come to power in Iran suddenly in 1979, without shedding any of their blood , and defeat the TUDEH and the various other anti-SHAH GROUPS.
My articles published in the Tehran Times http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/11/2006&Cat=14&Num=001 and Mehran News http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=351191
tried to differentiate between foreign backed insurgency groups and those that are domestic and home grown. Perhaps my conclusions were a little too simple.
Have a read of this excellent article by Justin Raimondo,"Hamas, Son of Israel" published in 01/27/2006 at Antiwar.com http://antiwar.com/justin/archives.php?offset=60, and think again if Hamas is really home grown, or the creation of Israel. Also this article at the excellent antiwar.com by Johnathan Cook, Israel's Disproportionate Violence No Surprise: J. Cook , http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9390 .
Thus if the Israelis created Hamas in the 1970's, could not they have also been behind the backing of Fundamentalists in Afghanistan from 1979, and Iran 1979, with the help of the American's, as a long term strategy to destabilise and attack Muslim countries. Hence my theory that the Israelis have been at this covert backing of fundamentalists since the seventies. Initially as a tactical move to counter Nasser's Pan Arabism, and then later to undermine the Socialist PLO, within whose ranks were many prominant Christian's. Then it developed into something wider in Iran and Afghanistan.
States often say one thing, but often they can have an hidden agenda for their actions and speeches. The rumour why Carter really wanted the Shah removed are many fold:
1. That the Shah it is alleged gave large sums of money to the American Republican party during the late sixties and early seventies, and when Carter came to power and found out, he wanted revenge. So he destabilized the Shah 1977-79, and humiliated him, an ally of America for 27 years, when he was very ill, by not allowing him to stay in the USA for treatment. There is an element of nasty petty meanness to this, and for me an indication that the Carter administration did indeed topple the Shah.
2. The Shah was instrumental in the oil price rises in the 1970's. During the sixties the Shah resisted pressure to raise oil prices. As the biggest OPEC exporter Iran had a critical role. By the early seventies some of his more well informed advisers started telling him that the oil that was being sold, was way under priced from its real market value. The global oil industry had been for a long time controlled by a the 'Seven Sisters'--Western oil companies, and the Shah's economic advisers told him that the $2.8 a barrel price around 1971, was tantamount to selling the oil at mineral water rates, with the bulk of the profits from the 'mineral water sale' going to Western oil companies. The 1973 Arab/Israeli war, and the Arab defeat again, with the Americans overtly supporting the Israelis, the Arab OPEC producers decided to act, and the Shah for different reasons joined them. In 1971 it was $2.8 a barrel, and by 1979 it was I think around $40 a barrel. A lot of people in the West were not happy with the Shah as the largest OPEC producer--5.5 million barrels.
The British were not very happy especially, as their main oil company BP still managed and sold most of Iran's oil by 1979. A British agent/Foreign Office official/academic/Zionist Professor by the name of Bernard Lewis was sent to Washington to 'soften up' the Americans with his various spurious arguments that Muslims really aren't capable of running their own countries and that they are better off being managed directly by benevolent Western colonial rule, rather like the British Empire.
To help this process you need to use Islamic fundamentalists to destabilise Muslim countries covertly, or overtly, and then go in, invade the country and 'liberate' it from the Islamic fundamentalists (Afghanistan being the perfect example------22 year process, Iran, 28 year process ?). This is called 'The Bernard Lewis plan' and the man who originally coined the false term 'Clash of civilisation'. The plan calls for the Balkanisation of Muslim countries along ethnic lines, whilst Israel is allowed to build its empire of 'Eretz Israel'. The Godfather to the neo-con movement, whose disciples have been responsible for the global security problems around the world. A significant but elusive figure.
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article4.html http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ralph_Peters_solution_to_Mideast.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
The Republican administration obviously were not going to buy this lie as they were close to the Shah, and they had promoted him to the 'Policeman of the Gulf'. The American arms industry wasn't doing to badly selling $30 billion worth of arms to the Shah. The Shah was a good reliable ally in a strategic position, who basically did what he was told by the Americans. The benefits of such a relationship were far greater to the Americans than it was to Iran. Then Carter came in via the Jewish dominated Democratic party and the situation suddenly changed.
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/26/reviews/971026.26gwertzt.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9703.htm
By the way some American oil analysts are now saying that $100 a barrel may be sustainable and possible in the future which will not harm the global economy and the oil industry, as long as it is done gradually. So Iran had some far sighted and good economists. I hope the mullahs have not frightened off any of the modern ones into California who go around earning a living driving taxis, and calling themselves 'Persians'.
3. Iran I believe translated means 'Land of the Aryans'. The Shah may have called himself the 'Light of all Aryans'. Jews who are a little basic and take things literally (Extremist Zionists) believe that the Aryan race caused the Holocaust 1933-45--Hitler/Nazism. Some obviously flushed with American power and unquestioned American backing may want to settle scores. This reminds me of American soldiers shooting on sight surrendering German soldiers in Normandy and saying, 'You nasty Japs'. In fact they were Tartars from the Ukraine. As with the Tartars its a case of mistaken identity.
The term Aryan has very different meanings in Europe and Asia. In Europe the term 'Aryan' is a racial superiority statement. The Master race. An idea/Unfounded myth not based on reality, cobbled together by a regime headed by a fruity megalomaniac without knowledge of the actual facts, a mere 80 years ago, and based on a mishmash of ideas and names from formidable thinkers from Germany, Nietzsche, Hegel and Kant, wrongly taken out of context, and applied with such appalling results.'I am Aryan and I am better than any body else, and further more I can treat others with less respect'.
The Holocaust was the product of European colonialism in the eighteenth and ninetieth century, and is not the responsibility of the real Aryans residing in Asia, the belief that non-Europeans are inferior and to be treated with less respect--Jews, Gypsies and of course Eurasian Slavs. Remember that 50-70 million people died in Asia, Africa and Central and South America when under colonial rule.
In Asia where the real Aryans originate from, Central Asia, and where 80% of all 'Iranians' live, it is an ethnic statement; 'I am Iranian' , ' I am Vietnamese' " I am Chinese" etc. No better than any body else. Now of course most Aryans refer to themselves as Indian, Pakistani, Afghan, Central Asian, Ukrainian etc. In Asia the long term existence of Aryan's is a historical fact and not merely an idea. Persia has been called Iran for at least four thousand years. The same with Afghanistan (Ariana) and the Subcontinent. When Aryan's in significant numbers move into an area they make their presence felt naturally, in various ways. Thus when Aryan's moved into India they called their new land 'Aryavarta' a term a few thousand years old. In Afghanistan the land was called 'Ariana' over a thousand years ago. They write poetry and other thousand year old scriptures such as the 'Mahabhrata' 'Rig Veda' or the 'Shahname'. They build fire temples or the like found in Iran and Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan . Such basic facts don't exists in Europe.
But some Jews with simple minds may have taken a different message when they read about Iran's Aryan background, and so they toppled the Shah, and installed mullahs in his place, the primary purpose of the mullahs is the propagation of what is essentially an Arab/Jewish religion--Islam. The same in neighbouring Afghanistan "Ariana'. Two steps behind the Jews on this issue are a very small number of Europeans who do believe what Hitler said that Aryans are in certain parts of Europe only-----a historical fact not provable, beyond the fact that certain Iranian tribes crossed from the Ukraine into Hungary and Bulgaria . Iranians as a race are not tall, blond and blue eyed.
The greater Islamic and thus Arabic Iran and Afghanistan become the more satisfaction is gained by a few Europeans and the Jews for two different reasons. In small pockets of the West it is to do with the male ego and racism. With the Jews it is to do with religious fantasy, and the desire to expand Israel's boundaries, and vengeance. Israel was always a little geographical strip throughout history, and 'Eretz' Israel was an idea.
The Jew confident that he controls America now feels strong enough to turn this religious fantasy into reality via America and Europe (NATO troops are doubling in Afghanistan---getting into a permanent mode). But ultimately this mad Jewish idea must fail because you can't conquer states after states, and Lebanonise them without a fight. Hence the Jews propaganda that fighting 'terrorism' will take many years, perhaps a century. What they are really saying is attacking more Muslim states one by one will take a long time, because the Americans and the Israelis obviously need to catch their breath, after attacking another MUSLIM COUNTRY: Afghanistan 2001; Iraq 2003; Somalia 2006.....................Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,...........and so on.
The facts are simple, Aryans did not cause the Holocaust. Nearly all Aryan countries are dirt poor and quite unremarkable. Their existence in Asia should not cause any insecurities or unwarranted anxieties elsewhere, though I appreciate that certain groups are experts at creating animosity out of nothing, diversion and playing groups against each other whilst they carry out their own real interests uninterrupted and unhindered.
What educated Iranian's have to ask are three small questions:
1. Why are the mullah in power with such a poor record of government? Why did they come into power in 1979? Why is Iran the only country in the world run by religious figures when 192 other UN general assembly countries are not? Iran is not a Democracy, but has the facade of a Democracy. Real power resides with the politically inept/disastrous mullah's via the Guardian Council, The Expediency Council, and the Supreme Leader. Controlling who is a candidate in elections is tantamount to controlling elections outcomes. Of course because of the Israelis, real Democracy could not function in the Middle East and one has only to look at Iraq, the situation in Palestine where they have captured a whole democratically elected cabinet, and finally Lebanon where they are destroying a democracy to be replaced by splinter groups of extreme groups running a none state without infrastructure. Once you have asked yourself this question then ask the next.
2. Are Iranians by nature very religious? Are they fervently more Muslim than say Arabs who do not have mullahs running their country? The answer is of course no! Iranian females have more freedom than their Arab female counterparts even under mullah rule.
3. Then you must ask yourself how on earth the mullahs came to power in the first place in Iran? who helped them into power? For what purpose? Who sustains them in power now with such crazy policies? Fidel Castro spent many years in political and armed struggle before he came to power in 1959. The Communists in Russia spent many decades in political and armed struggle before they finally controlled most of the former Russian empire in 1921. The Communists in China spent many years in political and armed struggle before they came to power in 1949. How did the politically inexperienced mullah's, without any political organisation come to power in Iran suddenly in 1979, without shedding any of their blood , and defeat the TUDEH and the various other anti-SHAH GROUPS.
My articles published in the Tehran Times http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/11/2006&Cat=14&Num=001 and Mehran News http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=351191
tried to differentiate between foreign backed insurgency groups and those that are domestic and home grown. Perhaps my conclusions were a little too simple.
Have a read of this excellent article by Justin Raimondo,"Hamas, Son of Israel" published in 01/27/2006 at Antiwar.com http://antiwar.com/justin/archives.php?offset=60, and think again if Hamas is really home grown, or the creation of Israel. Also this article at the excellent antiwar.com by Johnathan Cook, Israel's Disproportionate Violence No Surprise: J. Cook , http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9390 .
Thus if the Israelis created Hamas in the 1970's, could not they have also been behind the backing of Fundamentalists in Afghanistan from 1979, and Iran 1979, with the help of the American's, as a long term strategy to destabilise and attack Muslim countries. Hence my theory that the Israelis have been at this covert backing of fundamentalists since the seventies. Initially as a tactical move to counter Nasser's Pan Arabism, and then later to undermine the Socialist PLO, within whose ranks were many prominant Christian's. Then it developed into something wider in Iran and Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)