UPDATE 1:
Footage of two security forces' patrol cars deliberately MOWING PEOPLE DOWN in the streets:
An Iranian woman is run over and killed by the Islamic Republic's security forces:
Pro-democracy youth shot in the leg by the Islamic Republic's security forces:
Tehran University students carry-on pro-democracy demonstrations on-campus (this clip is from today):
The terrorist Islamic Republic's security forces attack peaceful pro-democracy demonstration (clip from Sunday 27 Dec)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
HIM Reza Pahlavi II's message to the Iranian Armed Forces
HIM Reza Pahlavi II calls on the Iranian Armed Forces to interfere in the Islamic Republic's brutal repression of freedom protestors - reminds them that it is their duty to defend their country and people from those that wish to inflict harm upon them.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Widespread anti-regime demonstrations across Iran
THIS BLOG-POST IS BEING UPDATED AS MORE NEWS/CLIPS/PHOTOS ARE UPLOADED BY COMPATRIOTS FROM INSIDE IRANThe people of Iran have continued to voice their rejection of the Islamic Republic and its leadership since the regime's staged s-elections; my fellow blogger Potkin Azarmehr has continuously covered the past month's anti-regime demonstrations (his blog entries provide a good timeline as to how this movement has grown and developed). Today marks the shiite religious day of "Ashura", which the regime normally "celebrates" each year with government-organized demonstrations and mourning ceremonies etc. - this year though things are different. The people of Iran who are fighting to regain their country from this hell-sent anti-Iranian islamic regime have turned the tables on the regime by using regime-sponsored/regime-sanctioned days of importance to stage their anti-regime demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience. Today huge crowds are staging massive anti-regime demonstrations across Iran - protests have spread far beyond the capital and now cover all of the countries big and small provincial towns. Tens of people have been shot dead across the country in clashes between the Islamic Republic's security forces and the Iranian people.
UPDATE 1: HIM Reza Pahlavi II message of support to freedom-seeking Iranians
Here are some clips which have been posted on youtube for global viewing:
Iranian freedom-fighters take over a police outpost in Tehran. One of the regime's security officials is captured and led away by the people. Towards end of the clip there are graphic images of an Iranian man shot dead by the Islamic Republic's security forces.
In the above clip a member of the Islamic Republic's security forces has been captured by Iranian freedom-fighters - there is nothing stopping them from ripping this mercenary to pieces but after some punches voices are heard to stop beating the person. This kind of situation has been norm in past situations as well - even when the regime's security officials have opened fire on the crowd and later been captured by the people the people have still been restrained in their treatment of these mercenaries. How long this restraint will last is anybody's guess...
People running from a tear-gas attack.
Many squares and intersections have been taken over by the people. Security forces have retreated and their cars/motorcycles set on fire.
People setting up barricades in the streets. Chants: "Don't be afraid, don't be afraid, we are all together!"
Iranian pro-democracy demonstrator killed by the savage Islamic Republic's security forces.
People are no longer afraid of the regime's mercenart forces. Here the mercenaries are fleeing on foot - peoples power in action.
Iranian freedom-fighter facing armed security forces of the terrorist Islamic Republic with nothing but rocks in his hands.
A street placard bearing the name of the terrorist Islamic Republic's leader is stamped on and defaced by Iranian crowds.
Military helicopters encircling Iranian pro-democracy demonstrators in Tehran.
Fearless pro-democracy demonstrators capture the regime's mercenary thugs.
Heroes of Iran's freedom movement.
Basij (the regime's paramilitary mercenary unit) building is set on fire by Iranian freedom fighters.
The Islamic Republic's security forces savagely beating and arresting Iranian women.
Police car is prevented from escaping. One of the Islamic Republic's mercenaries is arrested by the people.
EXTREMELY GRAPHIC footage of an Iranian protestor shot in the head by the terrorist Islamic Republic's mercenary forces!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
H.I.M. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the late Shah of Iran
H.I.M. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the late Shah of Iran
August 13, 2004 | Ardavan Bahrami
Source: LINK
“Every nation deserves the government it has.” Ayatollah Khomeini.
A recent trip to the United Kingdom provided me the opportunity to pay a visit to the British National Archive in Kew. Reading pages and pages and taking notes on various topics of interest made me decide to use some of the collected information and write the following piece.
One of the most under-studied and under-researched international personalities of the twentieth century has to be the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The Islamic revolution of 1979, its causes, roots, pros & cons as well as its outcomes have been covered in numerous books and articles. The event has been discussed and to some extent analysed in various seminars, conferences, speeches and lectures regarding its historical, sociological or political contexts throughout the world for the past twenty-five years. Despite all this, very little has been given to study, explore and to understand the very man who for thirty-seven years led his nation in peace and harmony with the international community towards a steady and at times a rapid social and economical progress which guaranteed tranquillity “in one of the most troubled regions of this world” . With the exception of a few books, the world scholars, journalists as well as its academic institutions have conveniently forgotten for various political reasons - usually driven by economical motives of their respected governments, the very person who was responsible for peace in the Middle East.
The modern world sometimes moves forward with such velocity that in order to find the remedies to a range of today’s world issues, it should pause and search the solutions in the not so distant past.
I am not a scholar, nor have any claim to be a historian or a politician. I am simply a curious Iranian to whom the world’s deafening silence seems perplexing. Looking back at the events of the past quarter of a century, I would like to make an attempt and review certain aspects of my country’s last monarch’s ambitions and his global forethoughts. Aspirations that though may have appeared - as some Europeans claimed at the time as “Folly de Grandeur”, but the passing of years have given their seal of approval to his hopes and fears.
Some may immediately ask me whether I would cover reasons for his failure too. My answer to them is; “No!” There have been so much unfinished debates and discussions worldwide on his fall that have only resulted in confusing the public. I believe it is time for the world to wake up and learn from his vision, achievements and his dreams; not only for Iran but for a world that had he survived, more than a million innocent men and women would have not perished from Kabul to New York.
My intention here is to remind the readers - Iranian or non-, of who he was and whom the world lost. I particularly would like to address the Americans who have been under attack since the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran more than any other Western nation on this planet.
What did Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dream for Iran, the Middle East and the World? Let’s review his most feasible plans that by now could have made our country part of what would have become the G9 group. Michael Heseltine a junior minister in the department of aerospace and industry at the time who later became Margaret Thatcher’s deputy Prime Minister (1995-1997) visited the Shah in May 1972. In his recent autobiography, “Life In The Jungle” published in 2000 he wrote; “The two big opportunities of my trip were thought to be Tehran and Singapore. It was understood that the Shah of Iran had a vision of Tehran as a staging post between West and East. He saw Concorde as an important part of the process, if Tehran was seen as a major stopover on its journey both ways. Our strategy was to fly him in the aircraft and hopefully get him to confirm his options to buy. We also needed his agreement to overflying rights. Much of Iran is open desert where the footprint of the sound barrier would have little or no impact.”
The former British Deputy PM carries on; “I was to meet the Shah in the Imperial Pavilion at Tehran airport for a brief introduction to the project, aided by various demonstrator boards, before he joined me for a flight. One of the demonstrator boards set up to be shown to the Shah consisted of a huge map of the world on which capital cities, principle airports and major flying routes were indicated in large, unmissable topography. About ten minutes before the Shah was due someone helpfully pointed out that there was no reference to Tehran on the map. The offending demonstrator board was removed from sight. Crisis averted. The Shah duly arrived. After a quick briefing we set off along the red carpet across the tarmac to the aircraft itself. During the flight it would be up to me to secure our sales and overflying objectives.
The take-off was uneventful and we sped heavenwards to the 58,000 feet at which the aircraft is most efficient. However, I had no sooner concluded the initial pleasantries than the Shah, an experienced pilot himself, asked if he could join the test pilot, Brian Trubshaw, in the cockpit. In a second he was gone. I was in despair. There was no other time during our stopover when I could conduct a sales pitch or secure agreements before we were due to leave Tehran. But the Shah did not return until we came in to land.
Down the steps we went, heading for the Imperial Pavilion. There were about 200 yards of red carpet between us and the waiting press corps. I had 200 yards in which to obtain – or not – the objective clearly set for me. I decided to go for it. ‘Your Majesty, I hope you enjoyed the flight. I would like to ask you if you would consider purchasing the aircraft?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘I would like two.’ So far, so good. ‘Your Majesty, we would be grateful for overflying rights across Iran on our journey to and from the Far East.’ ‘That would be quite acceptable,’ he said.
But the problem was that no one else had heard our conversation. My officials were some way behind me. I had been alone with the occupant of the Peacock Throne. By now we had reached the assembled press corps. The first journalists in the queue were Iranians. The level of questioning focused on such trivia as whether His Majesty had enjoyed the flight, the comfort of the plane and so on. Then a loud voice from somewhere to the rear of the crowd of journalists called out, ‘The Times, London, Your Majesty. Are you going to buy the aircraft?’ ‘Yes,’ said the Shah. ‘Two.’ Another British voice: ‘The BBC, London, Your Majesty. Will you give us overflying rights?’ ‘Yes, I will.’”
The Shah must obviously have studied and consulted the proposal with his advisors and experts in the field prior to his meeting with the British minister. Considering the immense revenue generated from overlying rights to Concorde together with our national carrier as the only airline flying Concorde aircrafts - after British Airways and Air France, and the only airline in the world to offer supersonic travels between the European business centres to those of Australia and the Far East, Iran Air Concorde would have dominated most international business flights between the West and the Orient.
Bearing in mind Heseltine’s autobiography was published many years after the collapse of our Imperial government, he writes; “In October 1972 Iran Air signed a preliminary agreement to purchase two Concordes for delivery in late 1976 or early 1977 with an option on a third. Six and a half years later the Shah was deposed and for at least two years before that he came under increasing anti-modernisation political pressure.”
Concorde never again succeeded in attracting a foreign investors in which its high costs of maintenance was a continuous issue until the crash in Paris on July25, 2000 brought its thirty year life to an end.
Our economical progress coupled with social changes proved to be too rapid for us Iranians to comprehend and appreciate. As Iran progressed industrially through the 70s like every other nation in the world the sudden change of pace brought with it various but expected deficiencies and shortages; nothing that time and hard work could have not over come. In other words, they were teething problems of any rapidly advancing nation. However, higher standard of living resulted in higher expectations among Iranians. The consequence was a society with raised expectations but no patience for their government to materialize their demands.
By this time Europeans were getting itchy on Iran’s arm spending and its armament budget – 26% of the total annual budget. Accusations were thrown and suspicions rose by the Western media. A Number of these countries were the very ones that Iran’s arms deals kept many of their citizens employed and therefore, helped their economy.
A reporter from the German magazine, Der Spiegel who interviewed the late Majesty on January 1974 questioned HIM regarding Iran’s arms spending. “Why are you spending so much money on armaments? Where is the enemy?”
The Shah replied; “Well, this is the same question as why Germany or France are spending so much money on armaments?”
Der Spiegel: Because they have some neighbours in the East whose intentions were not always quite clear.
The Shah: Are they going to attack you?
Der Spiegel: We hope not.
The Shah: So why are you spending the money? I am spending the money for exactly the same reason. I take no chances whatsoever. I have friends, I try to even have more friends, but we cannot only depend on our alliances. Sometimes we could be let down. Another thing: do you all agree that the October war with Israel was a surprise? Consider the amount of weapons and the sophisticated weapons that were used against Israel – did you or did even the Israelis expect anything like this? Everyone was surprised. So I take absolutely no chances. I must not depend on anyone but ourselves.
When Der Spiegel asked the Shah whether Iran can keep up with such growth – 20% annually, and reminded His Imperial Majesty that it took the Western countries generations to reach the present level and whether he thinks he can overlap this? The Shah responded, “Yes, our people are hard working and they have a craze for learning. We have all the incentives. We have our own traditions; we have a very old history – 3000 years. Why should we copy others?
Der Spiegel: And Western technology?
To this the Shah replied; “You have spent millions of dollars in research – after many years of hard work you have discovered things. Why shouldn’t we take it? But we take all these things and we keep what is good. And we can develop ideas also. All these isms – capitalism, socialism, communism, or anything else – are so old now that they do not correspond to the ideals of the human being. It doesn’t correspond to the breakthrough in technology, it doesn’t correspond to our times.”
By now our economy had become strong enough to reverse our trade patterns with that of Western Europe. The Times on January 26, 1974 reported; “Total Iranian exports to Britain last year were valued at about £124m while British exports and re-exports to Iran came to approximately £116m.”
We had reached a position of strength from a borrower - years earlier, to a major world lender, including to those among the elite of nations. Mr. Healy, Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech addressing the British parliament on July 22, 1974 thanked the Imperial Iranian government for providing Britain with a line of credit of $1,200m.
“I have not had to draw on the $2,500m loan, which was negotiated at the time of the Budget. And I am now able to tell the House of another welcome source of funds for public sectors borrowers.”
He continued, “The Imperial Iranian Government has offered to provide the United Kingdom with a line of credit of $1,200m, to be drawn on in the form of three separate loans by public sector bodies within three years from now.
We have reached agreement on this offer, and I hope that arrangements for the first loan will be made in the very near future. I know that the willingness of the Iranian Government to enter into an arrangement of this kind reflects the concern of His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Iran over the difficulties facing the world economy and his constructive attitudes to the problems at present facing the international monetary system, and I believe that the House will join me in welcoming this development.”
Iran’s loan to Britain helped the British government to reduce their VAT rate from 10% at the time to 8% - with immediate effect. On the following day The Times carried the following headline; “Chancellor cuts VAT, aid ratepayers, eases dividend limits and accepts Iran loan.”
In the same year, the Shah spoke of creating a new grouping of Indian Ocean countries on the basis of economic, political and eventually naval cooperation, to “secure our shipping lanes” and keep “non-regional powers” out.
When Iran’s GNP (Gross National Product) rose by 40% towards the end of 1974 and when we bought over 25% of steel-making subsidiary of the Krupp group from its German owners - an agreement which could set the pattern for investment of Middle Eastern countries in Western Europe, the European Union was still considered at its infancy. The Shah, aware of the economical centers of power in the United States and the then European Economic Community, had come to conclude a plan of his own. A project that could help to counter balance the Western economical might with that of the fast Asian developing countries, - the Indian Ocean Economic Union or Common Market.
Michael Hornsby a journalist from the Times newspaper reported from Delhi on October 3, 1974 on the Shah’s next regional vision. “The Shah envisaged the membership of his proposed organization being restricted initially to the “northern tier” of the Indian Ocean – Iran, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore – but eventually extending to Indo China, Australia and even African countries.”
Hornsby iterates that for the Indians to embrace the Shah’s scheme enthusiastically now, would be a considerable rebuff to the Soviet Union and an indication of the political price the Indians are prepared to pay for concessionary supplies of oil and other economic aid from Iran.
In the same month, the Shah and the Empress paid an official visit to Australia. The Australian papers as well as those elsewhere printed that Iran was likely either to lend money directly to Australian Industry Development Corporation or become jointly involved with the government in Australian projects.
But among all these, did the world appreciate his vision? Does the West ever want peace in the only region that can afford paying astronomical figures for the latest weapons and military technology? If the Arab nations and their leaders – particularly those in the Persian Gulf region, had the wisdom, they would have seen the prosperity and lasting peace that such fundamental plans could bring to our region and would have supported our government wholeheartedly.
The Shah had said that his plan would help to create a positive and co-operative world partnership, which could usher in a decade of genuine development to equalise today’s disparities between rich and poor nations and harmonise their contradictions, which are the main source of animosities, conflicts and wars.
As for the Iranian generation at the time, there were those who fully supported the regime’s policies and witnessed the improvements made in all walks of life. But there were also those groups of Iranians, in particular the students who received government scholarship, including a 90% discount on their return airfare, the cost of their living expenses together with their university fees while they attended universities in capitalist countries. Some of them joined the Iranian Student Confederation – a communist/socialist group, and did not miss a chance to demonstrate every time an Iranian official or the Shah paid a visit to a foreign country. These students who were spoiled by the Imperial government’s financial support believed that it was their right to live comfortably as students abroad - a student life enviable by other students, and their political prerogative to shout death to their sovereign. It is ironic that hardly any of our left wing activists had ever lived, studied or even visited any of the communist block!
Such a trend had seemed bizarre enough that a European newspaper wrote; “Few people, even among young Iranians, appreciate the extent and scope of the changes, mainly because most of them have now come to take them for granted.”2
As the Shah’s fame and Iran’s fortune became center stage by the mid-seventies, so did European animosity towards him and our regime. Human Rights groups that have chosen to be silent in the past two and a half decades of the Islamic Republic’s genocide, either for their respective governments’ foreign policy such as “Constructive Engagements” or trade opportunities, would had not missed a chance to demonstrate their anger against the Shah or our officials in every possible way.
This is at a time when in June 1974 Iran with its US$5.4 billion had come to occupy the 13th place among the 20 richest countries of the world. Two years later Iran’s income from exports reached the US$15 billion whereas its imports were only in region of US$13 billion, with 52% intermediate goods, 30% machinery and 18% consumer goods.
The man who the Western media had portrayed as a dictator, told in an interview in 1976 to the famous Indian journalist and writer R. K. Karanjia, “If ever I felt that Persia’s monarchy had outlived its usefulness, I would be happy to resign and would even join in helping to abolish our monarchical institution.”
Margaret Laing, in her book titled, “The Shah” wrote, “The Shah believes discipline without democracy is authoritarianism, and that democracy without discipline is anarchy.”
Ironically, for at least the past thirty years the European press more than any Iranian opposition have been accusing HIM of not being democratic. He was called an autocrat at the best times and the “blood sucker of the century” at its worst! No one took the pain to understand the Shah’s reasons or his long desire for establishing democracy, a seed that was sewn in his mind from his adolescent years in Switzerland.
Time after time the Shah repeated that his concept of democracy springs from the fact that today’s common man has steadily been losing his grip over his economic activities. “So he is fully justified in demanding, together with his political rights, guarantees for his economic rights as well. To a man in dire economic want,” he said, “political freedom is utterly meaningless. The first and foremost duty, therefore, of any government is to usher in democracy – political, economic and social – for the benefit of the common man. Ever since my return from Switzerland” he continued, “I had been evolving my philosophy that every man, woman, and child in my country – or, for that matter, in any country of the world – is entitled to a decent minimum of the five necessaries of life: food, clothing, housing, medical care and education. These I consider to be the five imperative tenets of social justice. Further, I believe a man’s minimum income must be at such a level as would enable him to secure these five fundamentals for himself and his family.”
Economic and social democracies were the first two steps of his bigger plan that he managed to create and nurture successfully. By the late 70s one could not find a hungry Iranian where only two decades earlier even our capital hardly had access to clean water or any sanitations. By introducing free meals six days a week throughout the academic year to every schoolchild whether from a poor or rich background Iranian children were fed the same nutritious food for free, on daily basis!
Economic democracy had created a large middle class that is the backbone of every healthy society. Iranians where free to engage in any field of business and commerce, many who received government subsidies or long term loans with one of the lowest interest rates in the world. We were free to travel and were respected in all countries we visited. Social freedoms had allowed Iranians to flourish and hence, create one of the most vibrant and avant-garde societies of the Sixties and the Seventies.
Having enjoyed the above, our people demanded for political democracy that the Shah wished to see fully established before passing the throne to his son. However, the social and economic democracies enjoyed in Iran of pre-Islamic revolution were the results of nearly two decades of hard work. When people demanded to have political democracy, certain initiatives had already taken place by the government on that path but Iranians wanted it not tomorrow but yesterday! Asking any Iranian today would agree that to reach political democracy we did not have to uproot our entire existence and had we been wiser and less manipulated, by now we would have been a prosperous nation with a powerful industry to match those in the Western world. With a difference that we would have created indigenous democratic institutions to meet our specific needs and desires, to match our tradition, culture and history and not simply by copying them from the West.
In the meantime the European media began pounding the regime with baseless accusations against SAVAK – Iran’s answer to every other nation’s intelligence organization.
Once the Islamic Republic triumphed, most of those who were claimed to be executed or tortured by SAVAK, walked healthy out of the prison and took various offices in the newly formed Islamic regime. With full access to billions of dollars left in Iran’s coffers these individuals succeeded in knitting a network of terror which introduced the world to a new concept of Islamic fanaticism pursued by an international terrorism with wider and more horrific dimensions than ever before. Those who were once cheered as freedom fighters by the West and its human rights organizations, have today come to threaten the life of every man, woman and child in Western civilization.
Even at such critical point the European Union still flirts with a mafia-like regime only to gain further lucrative deals. Two and half decades earlier the West with its powerful propaganda machine had unleashed their venom towards our Imperial government and accused us for our lack of respect for human rights in order to protect the very individuals who are today threatening the security of all European and mostly American citizens and their way of life.
SAVAK portrayed as one of the most notorious organizations by Western media, its very own boss Mr. Hossein Fardoust who had grown up with the Shah and was sent to Switzerland with him to study, turned out to be a collaborator with the revolutionaries for many years!
Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People’s Mojahedin Organization whose group has been listed by the US Congress as a terrorist organization and a collaborator with Ayatollah Khomeini was one of the prisoners twenty six years ago who walked out of a SAVAK prison with a clear bill of health. However, after his escape from the Islamic Republic’s tyranny which himself played an active role in its creation; in an interview in Paris soon after his arrival on August 7th, 1981 said to reporters, “Khomeini is worst than Hitler and the Shah was nothing but a choir boy."
When our so called intellectuals began condemning every move the regime made, irrespective of its nature and reason it reminded me of Henry Kissinger’s comment; “Intellectuals condemn society for materialism when it is prosperous and for injustice when it is to ensure prosperity.”
Once all political factions were pushed aside by the Islamic regime, they began accusing each other and that the revolution was stolen from them! I always wondered how could those self-appointed intellectuals who admitted losing to a bunch of theologians ever succeed in running the country?
We always tend to think of historical tragedy as failing to get what we want, but if we study history we find that the worst tragedies have occurred when people got what they wanted … and it turned out to be the wrong objectives.
In the midst of havoc and chaos created by the revolutionaries, our so-called allies never came to our aid; instead a member of Carter’s administration credited the Ayatollah with sainthood. Ten months later Khomeini awarded the Americans by taking their diplomats hostage for 444 days.
Years later Henry Kissinger wrote; “The United States must show that it is capable of rewarding a friend or penalizing an opponent. It must be made clear, after too long an interval that our allies benefit from association with us and our enemies suffer. It is a simpleminded proposition perhaps, but for a great power it is the prerequisite, indeed the definition, of an effective foreign policy.”
In another reference to Iran and the consequence of the fall of the Shah he wrote; “Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan are pivotal to the world’s security. Within few years of my 1973 journey to Tehran, it became an area of upheaval. From the Iranian revolution to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the Iran-Iraq war, events dramatized the vulnerability of the Persian Gulf – the lifeline of the West’s oil supply.”
The Shah in his last book, “Answer to History” which he began and completed in exile wrote, “The benefits of so many years of effort are now reduced to nothing.”
“Our assemblage of a formidable military force in the Middle East has resulted in charges of megalomania and of careless spending of Iran’s money on arms while my people are deprived of basics need. The question of the adequacy of our military force is subjective. To my knowledge, no military leader of world stature has criticized my arms policy as excessive. As for robbing the Iranian people of their living essentials in order to pay for armaments, nothing could be further from the truth. After paying for these armaments, Iran had a reserve of $12 billion in foreign currency.”
Today not only such reserve of foreign assets do not exist but according to the Deputy Governor of Central Bank of Iran (CBI) for Economic Affairs Akbar Kimjani, “Iran's foreign debt, excluding interests due, stands at USD 23.438 billion by the end of the Iranian month of Dey (December 22, 2003 - January 20, 2004).”
Michael Ledeen in his book titled- Debacle: The American failure in Iran, says; “Accordingly, Mohammad Reza became passionately committed to the view that he must not take action that would produce large-scale bloodshed in his last days. He desired to be remembered as a benevolent monarch, not a ruthless dictator. As he told friends repeatedly in the final months of his rule, he wished to leave Iran not only with an advanced industrial base and military organization but with a modern political system as well. And he wanted to pass on to his son a country with genuine affection for the Pahlavi family. Could this be achieved if the revolution were smashed by the application of what he called " the iron fist"? The shah did not think so. Months after the debacle, he wrote:
‘I am told today that I should have applied martial law more forcefully. This would have cost my country less dear that the bloody anarchy now established there. But a sovereign cannot save his throne by spilling the blood of his fellow countrymen. A dictator can do it because he acts in the name of an ideology, which he believes he must make triumphant, no matter what the price. A sovereign is not a dictator. There is between him and his people an alliance, which he cannot break. A dictator has nothing to pass on: power belongs to him and him alone. A sovereign receives a crown. I could envisage my son mounting the throne in my own lifetime …’
Ledeen continues, “The last sentence is the operative one-the shah knew he was dying, and that the way in which the Iranian crisis was resolved would determine the destiny of his heir.”
While in exile Carter turned his back on the Shah and did not want to have anything to do with the leader who when celebrating New Year’s Eve 1978 at his home - Niavaran Palace in Tehran, he addressed the Shah by; “Our talks have been priceless, our friendship is irreplaceable, and my own gratitude is to the Shah, who in his wisdom and with his experience has been so helpful to me, a new leader.”
Steven Hayward in his book published in 2004 under the title, “The Real Jimmy Carter” writes; “Carter betrayed a man whose fall to the Ayatollah Khomeini on Carter’s watch spawned the resurgence of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism that is now the War on Terror.
Two months after the Shah’s death in Egypt, Iran’s brave armed forces who were trained as first class troops with the best armaments but without their top generals who had all been executed in the previous twenty months, were the key factors in stopping Saddam Hussein invading our country in an eight year war with Iraq.
Had the Shah of Iran remained in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have occurred. By 1975, Iran’s superior military and economic power, supported diplomatically by her good neighbour policy that promised peace and progress for all, had drawn Saddam Hussein to a politics of mutual respect and friendly interaction. The Algiers Agreement of 1975 and Saddam’s expulsion of Khomeini from Iraq in 1978 attest to the efficiency of Iranian power and diplomacy. Had the war not occurred, a million Iranians and Iraqis would have not died in vain and several million would not have been forced from home and family.
Moreover, Iran’s national power and international prestige, and her interest in the Persian Gulf, would have made it impossible for Saddam to invade Kuwait. With the fall of the Soviet system, Iran, boasting the most advanced economy, technology and military in the region, would be the hub of peaceful and profitable diplomatic, cultural, economic and commercial relations in Central Asia and the Middle East. Iran’s power and her friendly and rational relations with the West would have made the presence of American troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf region redundant and consequently anti-American feeling would not have been excited by the likes of Khomeini or Khamanei or Osama Bin Laden. Islamist movements and organizations would not have the Islamic Republic as a model for emulation or support for expansion. A powerful, secular, and peaceful Iran – non-Arab and non-Jewish- would be a pillar on which both Israel and the Arab world could lean for balance and security as they and the world strived for peace in justice and dignity.
Henry Kissinger in Years of Upheaval in relation to the Shah and his fall wrote; “What overthrew the Shah was a coalition of legitimate grievances and an inchoate accumulation of resentment aimed at the very concept of modernity and at the Shah’s role as a moderate world leader. The Shah was despised less for what he did wrong than for what he did right. He was brought down by those who hated reform and the West; who were against absolute rule only if it was based on secular principles. The immediate victors were not enlightened dissidents of liberal democratic persuasion but the most regressive group in Iranian society: the religious ayatollahs who identified human dignity not with freedom and progress but with an ancient moral and religious code.”
Today the Shah of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini are both gone. While Khomeini left a prosperous country in ruins and damaged Islam more than any one else since its advent, the Shah’s legacy lives on to this day in the hearts and minds of every Iranian.
Our youth today realising the catastrophic mistake that their parents made are eager more than ever before to learn about the truth. As Princess Ashraf called her book, it is “Time for Truth”.
The new generation who has escalated their pro democratic and secularist demand in recent years have so far received no international support while paying the heaviest price. They would only need to go through the pages of their family albums and see their parents during their teenage years or when they dated each other to begin questioning them about the country we had during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Many of them blaming the older generation for today’s ills are determined to put an end to this absurdity ruling our ancient land in the 21st century.
All they expect from the international community is to stick by them and to stop cutting deals with the religious apartheid that is bringing our nation to a complete annihilation.
If some of those in the older generation agreed with Ayatollah Khomeini and brought a system of government that they deserved, the new generation obviously deserves better and will demolish the system whether the European Union decides to be with us or with the terrorists.
Some of us may have lost hope, but in addressing his nation for the last time, the Shah in Answer to History wrote; “The lesson of the wickedness and immorality of international power-politics was burnt – yes, very literally burnt – into my mind and heart. The main lesson I learnt was that when you are weak you have got to be very patient. You have got to accept humiliation. You have got to take the worst kind of insults. But in your inner heart you have got to love your country, have faith in its people and believe in their destiny as well as yours. If you do so, there is always a little ray of hope left which kindles in your conscience and inspires you to make the best of the worst possible circumstances and save whatever little you can of your land and its inheritance. That is the key to human survival amidst overwhelming difficulties.”
August 13, 2004 | Ardavan Bahrami
Source: LINK
“Every nation deserves the government it has.” Ayatollah Khomeini.
A recent trip to the United Kingdom provided me the opportunity to pay a visit to the British National Archive in Kew. Reading pages and pages and taking notes on various topics of interest made me decide to use some of the collected information and write the following piece.
One of the most under-studied and under-researched international personalities of the twentieth century has to be the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The Islamic revolution of 1979, its causes, roots, pros & cons as well as its outcomes have been covered in numerous books and articles. The event has been discussed and to some extent analysed in various seminars, conferences, speeches and lectures regarding its historical, sociological or political contexts throughout the world for the past twenty-five years. Despite all this, very little has been given to study, explore and to understand the very man who for thirty-seven years led his nation in peace and harmony with the international community towards a steady and at times a rapid social and economical progress which guaranteed tranquillity “in one of the most troubled regions of this world” . With the exception of a few books, the world scholars, journalists as well as its academic institutions have conveniently forgotten for various political reasons - usually driven by economical motives of their respected governments, the very person who was responsible for peace in the Middle East.
The modern world sometimes moves forward with such velocity that in order to find the remedies to a range of today’s world issues, it should pause and search the solutions in the not so distant past.
I am not a scholar, nor have any claim to be a historian or a politician. I am simply a curious Iranian to whom the world’s deafening silence seems perplexing. Looking back at the events of the past quarter of a century, I would like to make an attempt and review certain aspects of my country’s last monarch’s ambitions and his global forethoughts. Aspirations that though may have appeared - as some Europeans claimed at the time as “Folly de Grandeur”, but the passing of years have given their seal of approval to his hopes and fears.
Some may immediately ask me whether I would cover reasons for his failure too. My answer to them is; “No!” There have been so much unfinished debates and discussions worldwide on his fall that have only resulted in confusing the public. I believe it is time for the world to wake up and learn from his vision, achievements and his dreams; not only for Iran but for a world that had he survived, more than a million innocent men and women would have not perished from Kabul to New York.
My intention here is to remind the readers - Iranian or non-, of who he was and whom the world lost. I particularly would like to address the Americans who have been under attack since the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran more than any other Western nation on this planet.
What did Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dream for Iran, the Middle East and the World? Let’s review his most feasible plans that by now could have made our country part of what would have become the G9 group. Michael Heseltine a junior minister in the department of aerospace and industry at the time who later became Margaret Thatcher’s deputy Prime Minister (1995-1997) visited the Shah in May 1972. In his recent autobiography, “Life In The Jungle” published in 2000 he wrote; “The two big opportunities of my trip were thought to be Tehran and Singapore. It was understood that the Shah of Iran had a vision of Tehran as a staging post between West and East. He saw Concorde as an important part of the process, if Tehran was seen as a major stopover on its journey both ways. Our strategy was to fly him in the aircraft and hopefully get him to confirm his options to buy. We also needed his agreement to overflying rights. Much of Iran is open desert where the footprint of the sound barrier would have little or no impact.”
The former British Deputy PM carries on; “I was to meet the Shah in the Imperial Pavilion at Tehran airport for a brief introduction to the project, aided by various demonstrator boards, before he joined me for a flight. One of the demonstrator boards set up to be shown to the Shah consisted of a huge map of the world on which capital cities, principle airports and major flying routes were indicated in large, unmissable topography. About ten minutes before the Shah was due someone helpfully pointed out that there was no reference to Tehran on the map. The offending demonstrator board was removed from sight. Crisis averted. The Shah duly arrived. After a quick briefing we set off along the red carpet across the tarmac to the aircraft itself. During the flight it would be up to me to secure our sales and overflying objectives.
The take-off was uneventful and we sped heavenwards to the 58,000 feet at which the aircraft is most efficient. However, I had no sooner concluded the initial pleasantries than the Shah, an experienced pilot himself, asked if he could join the test pilot, Brian Trubshaw, in the cockpit. In a second he was gone. I was in despair. There was no other time during our stopover when I could conduct a sales pitch or secure agreements before we were due to leave Tehran. But the Shah did not return until we came in to land.
Down the steps we went, heading for the Imperial Pavilion. There were about 200 yards of red carpet between us and the waiting press corps. I had 200 yards in which to obtain – or not – the objective clearly set for me. I decided to go for it. ‘Your Majesty, I hope you enjoyed the flight. I would like to ask you if you would consider purchasing the aircraft?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘I would like two.’ So far, so good. ‘Your Majesty, we would be grateful for overflying rights across Iran on our journey to and from the Far East.’ ‘That would be quite acceptable,’ he said.
But the problem was that no one else had heard our conversation. My officials were some way behind me. I had been alone with the occupant of the Peacock Throne. By now we had reached the assembled press corps. The first journalists in the queue were Iranians. The level of questioning focused on such trivia as whether His Majesty had enjoyed the flight, the comfort of the plane and so on. Then a loud voice from somewhere to the rear of the crowd of journalists called out, ‘The Times, London, Your Majesty. Are you going to buy the aircraft?’ ‘Yes,’ said the Shah. ‘Two.’ Another British voice: ‘The BBC, London, Your Majesty. Will you give us overflying rights?’ ‘Yes, I will.’”
The Shah must obviously have studied and consulted the proposal with his advisors and experts in the field prior to his meeting with the British minister. Considering the immense revenue generated from overlying rights to Concorde together with our national carrier as the only airline flying Concorde aircrafts - after British Airways and Air France, and the only airline in the world to offer supersonic travels between the European business centres to those of Australia and the Far East, Iran Air Concorde would have dominated most international business flights between the West and the Orient.
Bearing in mind Heseltine’s autobiography was published many years after the collapse of our Imperial government, he writes; “In October 1972 Iran Air signed a preliminary agreement to purchase two Concordes for delivery in late 1976 or early 1977 with an option on a third. Six and a half years later the Shah was deposed and for at least two years before that he came under increasing anti-modernisation political pressure.”
Concorde never again succeeded in attracting a foreign investors in which its high costs of maintenance was a continuous issue until the crash in Paris on July25, 2000 brought its thirty year life to an end.
Our economical progress coupled with social changes proved to be too rapid for us Iranians to comprehend and appreciate. As Iran progressed industrially through the 70s like every other nation in the world the sudden change of pace brought with it various but expected deficiencies and shortages; nothing that time and hard work could have not over come. In other words, they were teething problems of any rapidly advancing nation. However, higher standard of living resulted in higher expectations among Iranians. The consequence was a society with raised expectations but no patience for their government to materialize their demands.
By this time Europeans were getting itchy on Iran’s arm spending and its armament budget – 26% of the total annual budget. Accusations were thrown and suspicions rose by the Western media. A Number of these countries were the very ones that Iran’s arms deals kept many of their citizens employed and therefore, helped their economy.
A reporter from the German magazine, Der Spiegel who interviewed the late Majesty on January 1974 questioned HIM regarding Iran’s arms spending. “Why are you spending so much money on armaments? Where is the enemy?”
The Shah replied; “Well, this is the same question as why Germany or France are spending so much money on armaments?”
Der Spiegel: Because they have some neighbours in the East whose intentions were not always quite clear.
The Shah: Are they going to attack you?
Der Spiegel: We hope not.
The Shah: So why are you spending the money? I am spending the money for exactly the same reason. I take no chances whatsoever. I have friends, I try to even have more friends, but we cannot only depend on our alliances. Sometimes we could be let down. Another thing: do you all agree that the October war with Israel was a surprise? Consider the amount of weapons and the sophisticated weapons that were used against Israel – did you or did even the Israelis expect anything like this? Everyone was surprised. So I take absolutely no chances. I must not depend on anyone but ourselves.
When Der Spiegel asked the Shah whether Iran can keep up with such growth – 20% annually, and reminded His Imperial Majesty that it took the Western countries generations to reach the present level and whether he thinks he can overlap this? The Shah responded, “Yes, our people are hard working and they have a craze for learning. We have all the incentives. We have our own traditions; we have a very old history – 3000 years. Why should we copy others?
Der Spiegel: And Western technology?
To this the Shah replied; “You have spent millions of dollars in research – after many years of hard work you have discovered things. Why shouldn’t we take it? But we take all these things and we keep what is good. And we can develop ideas also. All these isms – capitalism, socialism, communism, or anything else – are so old now that they do not correspond to the ideals of the human being. It doesn’t correspond to the breakthrough in technology, it doesn’t correspond to our times.”
By now our economy had become strong enough to reverse our trade patterns with that of Western Europe. The Times on January 26, 1974 reported; “Total Iranian exports to Britain last year were valued at about £124m while British exports and re-exports to Iran came to approximately £116m.”
We had reached a position of strength from a borrower - years earlier, to a major world lender, including to those among the elite of nations. Mr. Healy, Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech addressing the British parliament on July 22, 1974 thanked the Imperial Iranian government for providing Britain with a line of credit of $1,200m.
“I have not had to draw on the $2,500m loan, which was negotiated at the time of the Budget. And I am now able to tell the House of another welcome source of funds for public sectors borrowers.”
He continued, “The Imperial Iranian Government has offered to provide the United Kingdom with a line of credit of $1,200m, to be drawn on in the form of three separate loans by public sector bodies within three years from now.
We have reached agreement on this offer, and I hope that arrangements for the first loan will be made in the very near future. I know that the willingness of the Iranian Government to enter into an arrangement of this kind reflects the concern of His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Iran over the difficulties facing the world economy and his constructive attitudes to the problems at present facing the international monetary system, and I believe that the House will join me in welcoming this development.”
Iran’s loan to Britain helped the British government to reduce their VAT rate from 10% at the time to 8% - with immediate effect. On the following day The Times carried the following headline; “Chancellor cuts VAT, aid ratepayers, eases dividend limits and accepts Iran loan.”
In the same year, the Shah spoke of creating a new grouping of Indian Ocean countries on the basis of economic, political and eventually naval cooperation, to “secure our shipping lanes” and keep “non-regional powers” out.
When Iran’s GNP (Gross National Product) rose by 40% towards the end of 1974 and when we bought over 25% of steel-making subsidiary of the Krupp group from its German owners - an agreement which could set the pattern for investment of Middle Eastern countries in Western Europe, the European Union was still considered at its infancy. The Shah, aware of the economical centers of power in the United States and the then European Economic Community, had come to conclude a plan of his own. A project that could help to counter balance the Western economical might with that of the fast Asian developing countries, - the Indian Ocean Economic Union or Common Market.
Michael Hornsby a journalist from the Times newspaper reported from Delhi on October 3, 1974 on the Shah’s next regional vision. “The Shah envisaged the membership of his proposed organization being restricted initially to the “northern tier” of the Indian Ocean – Iran, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore – but eventually extending to Indo China, Australia and even African countries.”
Hornsby iterates that for the Indians to embrace the Shah’s scheme enthusiastically now, would be a considerable rebuff to the Soviet Union and an indication of the political price the Indians are prepared to pay for concessionary supplies of oil and other economic aid from Iran.
In the same month, the Shah and the Empress paid an official visit to Australia. The Australian papers as well as those elsewhere printed that Iran was likely either to lend money directly to Australian Industry Development Corporation or become jointly involved with the government in Australian projects.
But among all these, did the world appreciate his vision? Does the West ever want peace in the only region that can afford paying astronomical figures for the latest weapons and military technology? If the Arab nations and their leaders – particularly those in the Persian Gulf region, had the wisdom, they would have seen the prosperity and lasting peace that such fundamental plans could bring to our region and would have supported our government wholeheartedly.
The Shah had said that his plan would help to create a positive and co-operative world partnership, which could usher in a decade of genuine development to equalise today’s disparities between rich and poor nations and harmonise their contradictions, which are the main source of animosities, conflicts and wars.
As for the Iranian generation at the time, there were those who fully supported the regime’s policies and witnessed the improvements made in all walks of life. But there were also those groups of Iranians, in particular the students who received government scholarship, including a 90% discount on their return airfare, the cost of their living expenses together with their university fees while they attended universities in capitalist countries. Some of them joined the Iranian Student Confederation – a communist/socialist group, and did not miss a chance to demonstrate every time an Iranian official or the Shah paid a visit to a foreign country. These students who were spoiled by the Imperial government’s financial support believed that it was their right to live comfortably as students abroad - a student life enviable by other students, and their political prerogative to shout death to their sovereign. It is ironic that hardly any of our left wing activists had ever lived, studied or even visited any of the communist block!
Such a trend had seemed bizarre enough that a European newspaper wrote; “Few people, even among young Iranians, appreciate the extent and scope of the changes, mainly because most of them have now come to take them for granted.”2
As the Shah’s fame and Iran’s fortune became center stage by the mid-seventies, so did European animosity towards him and our regime. Human Rights groups that have chosen to be silent in the past two and a half decades of the Islamic Republic’s genocide, either for their respective governments’ foreign policy such as “Constructive Engagements” or trade opportunities, would had not missed a chance to demonstrate their anger against the Shah or our officials in every possible way.
This is at a time when in June 1974 Iran with its US$5.4 billion had come to occupy the 13th place among the 20 richest countries of the world. Two years later Iran’s income from exports reached the US$15 billion whereas its imports were only in region of US$13 billion, with 52% intermediate goods, 30% machinery and 18% consumer goods.
The man who the Western media had portrayed as a dictator, told in an interview in 1976 to the famous Indian journalist and writer R. K. Karanjia, “If ever I felt that Persia’s monarchy had outlived its usefulness, I would be happy to resign and would even join in helping to abolish our monarchical institution.”
Margaret Laing, in her book titled, “The Shah” wrote, “The Shah believes discipline without democracy is authoritarianism, and that democracy without discipline is anarchy.”
Ironically, for at least the past thirty years the European press more than any Iranian opposition have been accusing HIM of not being democratic. He was called an autocrat at the best times and the “blood sucker of the century” at its worst! No one took the pain to understand the Shah’s reasons or his long desire for establishing democracy, a seed that was sewn in his mind from his adolescent years in Switzerland.
Time after time the Shah repeated that his concept of democracy springs from the fact that today’s common man has steadily been losing his grip over his economic activities. “So he is fully justified in demanding, together with his political rights, guarantees for his economic rights as well. To a man in dire economic want,” he said, “political freedom is utterly meaningless. The first and foremost duty, therefore, of any government is to usher in democracy – political, economic and social – for the benefit of the common man. Ever since my return from Switzerland” he continued, “I had been evolving my philosophy that every man, woman, and child in my country – or, for that matter, in any country of the world – is entitled to a decent minimum of the five necessaries of life: food, clothing, housing, medical care and education. These I consider to be the five imperative tenets of social justice. Further, I believe a man’s minimum income must be at such a level as would enable him to secure these five fundamentals for himself and his family.”
Economic and social democracies were the first two steps of his bigger plan that he managed to create and nurture successfully. By the late 70s one could not find a hungry Iranian where only two decades earlier even our capital hardly had access to clean water or any sanitations. By introducing free meals six days a week throughout the academic year to every schoolchild whether from a poor or rich background Iranian children were fed the same nutritious food for free, on daily basis!
Economic democracy had created a large middle class that is the backbone of every healthy society. Iranians where free to engage in any field of business and commerce, many who received government subsidies or long term loans with one of the lowest interest rates in the world. We were free to travel and were respected in all countries we visited. Social freedoms had allowed Iranians to flourish and hence, create one of the most vibrant and avant-garde societies of the Sixties and the Seventies.
Having enjoyed the above, our people demanded for political democracy that the Shah wished to see fully established before passing the throne to his son. However, the social and economic democracies enjoyed in Iran of pre-Islamic revolution were the results of nearly two decades of hard work. When people demanded to have political democracy, certain initiatives had already taken place by the government on that path but Iranians wanted it not tomorrow but yesterday! Asking any Iranian today would agree that to reach political democracy we did not have to uproot our entire existence and had we been wiser and less manipulated, by now we would have been a prosperous nation with a powerful industry to match those in the Western world. With a difference that we would have created indigenous democratic institutions to meet our specific needs and desires, to match our tradition, culture and history and not simply by copying them from the West.
In the meantime the European media began pounding the regime with baseless accusations against SAVAK – Iran’s answer to every other nation’s intelligence organization.
Once the Islamic Republic triumphed, most of those who were claimed to be executed or tortured by SAVAK, walked healthy out of the prison and took various offices in the newly formed Islamic regime. With full access to billions of dollars left in Iran’s coffers these individuals succeeded in knitting a network of terror which introduced the world to a new concept of Islamic fanaticism pursued by an international terrorism with wider and more horrific dimensions than ever before. Those who were once cheered as freedom fighters by the West and its human rights organizations, have today come to threaten the life of every man, woman and child in Western civilization.
Even at such critical point the European Union still flirts with a mafia-like regime only to gain further lucrative deals. Two and half decades earlier the West with its powerful propaganda machine had unleashed their venom towards our Imperial government and accused us for our lack of respect for human rights in order to protect the very individuals who are today threatening the security of all European and mostly American citizens and their way of life.
SAVAK portrayed as one of the most notorious organizations by Western media, its very own boss Mr. Hossein Fardoust who had grown up with the Shah and was sent to Switzerland with him to study, turned out to be a collaborator with the revolutionaries for many years!
Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People’s Mojahedin Organization whose group has been listed by the US Congress as a terrorist organization and a collaborator with Ayatollah Khomeini was one of the prisoners twenty six years ago who walked out of a SAVAK prison with a clear bill of health. However, after his escape from the Islamic Republic’s tyranny which himself played an active role in its creation; in an interview in Paris soon after his arrival on August 7th, 1981 said to reporters, “Khomeini is worst than Hitler and the Shah was nothing but a choir boy."
When our so called intellectuals began condemning every move the regime made, irrespective of its nature and reason it reminded me of Henry Kissinger’s comment; “Intellectuals condemn society for materialism when it is prosperous and for injustice when it is to ensure prosperity.”
Once all political factions were pushed aside by the Islamic regime, they began accusing each other and that the revolution was stolen from them! I always wondered how could those self-appointed intellectuals who admitted losing to a bunch of theologians ever succeed in running the country?
We always tend to think of historical tragedy as failing to get what we want, but if we study history we find that the worst tragedies have occurred when people got what they wanted … and it turned out to be the wrong objectives.
In the midst of havoc and chaos created by the revolutionaries, our so-called allies never came to our aid; instead a member of Carter’s administration credited the Ayatollah with sainthood. Ten months later Khomeini awarded the Americans by taking their diplomats hostage for 444 days.
Years later Henry Kissinger wrote; “The United States must show that it is capable of rewarding a friend or penalizing an opponent. It must be made clear, after too long an interval that our allies benefit from association with us and our enemies suffer. It is a simpleminded proposition perhaps, but for a great power it is the prerequisite, indeed the definition, of an effective foreign policy.”
In another reference to Iran and the consequence of the fall of the Shah he wrote; “Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan are pivotal to the world’s security. Within few years of my 1973 journey to Tehran, it became an area of upheaval. From the Iranian revolution to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the Iran-Iraq war, events dramatized the vulnerability of the Persian Gulf – the lifeline of the West’s oil supply.”
The Shah in his last book, “Answer to History” which he began and completed in exile wrote, “The benefits of so many years of effort are now reduced to nothing.”
“Our assemblage of a formidable military force in the Middle East has resulted in charges of megalomania and of careless spending of Iran’s money on arms while my people are deprived of basics need. The question of the adequacy of our military force is subjective. To my knowledge, no military leader of world stature has criticized my arms policy as excessive. As for robbing the Iranian people of their living essentials in order to pay for armaments, nothing could be further from the truth. After paying for these armaments, Iran had a reserve of $12 billion in foreign currency.”
Today not only such reserve of foreign assets do not exist but according to the Deputy Governor of Central Bank of Iran (CBI) for Economic Affairs Akbar Kimjani, “Iran's foreign debt, excluding interests due, stands at USD 23.438 billion by the end of the Iranian month of Dey (December 22, 2003 - January 20, 2004).”
Michael Ledeen in his book titled- Debacle: The American failure in Iran, says; “Accordingly, Mohammad Reza became passionately committed to the view that he must not take action that would produce large-scale bloodshed in his last days. He desired to be remembered as a benevolent monarch, not a ruthless dictator. As he told friends repeatedly in the final months of his rule, he wished to leave Iran not only with an advanced industrial base and military organization but with a modern political system as well. And he wanted to pass on to his son a country with genuine affection for the Pahlavi family. Could this be achieved if the revolution were smashed by the application of what he called " the iron fist"? The shah did not think so. Months after the debacle, he wrote:
‘I am told today that I should have applied martial law more forcefully. This would have cost my country less dear that the bloody anarchy now established there. But a sovereign cannot save his throne by spilling the blood of his fellow countrymen. A dictator can do it because he acts in the name of an ideology, which he believes he must make triumphant, no matter what the price. A sovereign is not a dictator. There is between him and his people an alliance, which he cannot break. A dictator has nothing to pass on: power belongs to him and him alone. A sovereign receives a crown. I could envisage my son mounting the throne in my own lifetime …’
Ledeen continues, “The last sentence is the operative one-the shah knew he was dying, and that the way in which the Iranian crisis was resolved would determine the destiny of his heir.”
While in exile Carter turned his back on the Shah and did not want to have anything to do with the leader who when celebrating New Year’s Eve 1978 at his home - Niavaran Palace in Tehran, he addressed the Shah by; “Our talks have been priceless, our friendship is irreplaceable, and my own gratitude is to the Shah, who in his wisdom and with his experience has been so helpful to me, a new leader.”
Steven Hayward in his book published in 2004 under the title, “The Real Jimmy Carter” writes; “Carter betrayed a man whose fall to the Ayatollah Khomeini on Carter’s watch spawned the resurgence of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism that is now the War on Terror.
Two months after the Shah’s death in Egypt, Iran’s brave armed forces who were trained as first class troops with the best armaments but without their top generals who had all been executed in the previous twenty months, were the key factors in stopping Saddam Hussein invading our country in an eight year war with Iraq.
Had the Shah of Iran remained in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have occurred. By 1975, Iran’s superior military and economic power, supported diplomatically by her good neighbour policy that promised peace and progress for all, had drawn Saddam Hussein to a politics of mutual respect and friendly interaction. The Algiers Agreement of 1975 and Saddam’s expulsion of Khomeini from Iraq in 1978 attest to the efficiency of Iranian power and diplomacy. Had the war not occurred, a million Iranians and Iraqis would have not died in vain and several million would not have been forced from home and family.
Moreover, Iran’s national power and international prestige, and her interest in the Persian Gulf, would have made it impossible for Saddam to invade Kuwait. With the fall of the Soviet system, Iran, boasting the most advanced economy, technology and military in the region, would be the hub of peaceful and profitable diplomatic, cultural, economic and commercial relations in Central Asia and the Middle East. Iran’s power and her friendly and rational relations with the West would have made the presence of American troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf region redundant and consequently anti-American feeling would not have been excited by the likes of Khomeini or Khamanei or Osama Bin Laden. Islamist movements and organizations would not have the Islamic Republic as a model for emulation or support for expansion. A powerful, secular, and peaceful Iran – non-Arab and non-Jewish- would be a pillar on which both Israel and the Arab world could lean for balance and security as they and the world strived for peace in justice and dignity.
Henry Kissinger in Years of Upheaval in relation to the Shah and his fall wrote; “What overthrew the Shah was a coalition of legitimate grievances and an inchoate accumulation of resentment aimed at the very concept of modernity and at the Shah’s role as a moderate world leader. The Shah was despised less for what he did wrong than for what he did right. He was brought down by those who hated reform and the West; who were against absolute rule only if it was based on secular principles. The immediate victors were not enlightened dissidents of liberal democratic persuasion but the most regressive group in Iranian society: the religious ayatollahs who identified human dignity not with freedom and progress but with an ancient moral and religious code.”
Today the Shah of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini are both gone. While Khomeini left a prosperous country in ruins and damaged Islam more than any one else since its advent, the Shah’s legacy lives on to this day in the hearts and minds of every Iranian.
Our youth today realising the catastrophic mistake that their parents made are eager more than ever before to learn about the truth. As Princess Ashraf called her book, it is “Time for Truth”.
The new generation who has escalated their pro democratic and secularist demand in recent years have so far received no international support while paying the heaviest price. They would only need to go through the pages of their family albums and see their parents during their teenage years or when they dated each other to begin questioning them about the country we had during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Many of them blaming the older generation for today’s ills are determined to put an end to this absurdity ruling our ancient land in the 21st century.
All they expect from the international community is to stick by them and to stop cutting deals with the religious apartheid that is bringing our nation to a complete annihilation.
If some of those in the older generation agreed with Ayatollah Khomeini and brought a system of government that they deserved, the new generation obviously deserves better and will demolish the system whether the European Union decides to be with us or with the terrorists.
Some of us may have lost hope, but in addressing his nation for the last time, the Shah in Answer to History wrote; “The lesson of the wickedness and immorality of international power-politics was burnt – yes, very literally burnt – into my mind and heart. The main lesson I learnt was that when you are weak you have got to be very patient. You have got to accept humiliation. You have got to take the worst kind of insults. But in your inner heart you have got to love your country, have faith in its people and believe in their destiny as well as yours. If you do so, there is always a little ray of hope left which kindles in your conscience and inspires you to make the best of the worst possible circumstances and save whatever little you can of your land and its inheritance. That is the key to human survival amidst overwhelming difficulties.”
Recounting the murder of Dr Koroush Aryamanesh
One of Dr Koroush Aryamanesh' close colleagues recounts how the Islamic Republic was able to infiltrate their cultural association "Guardians of Iranian Culture" and by so doing lay the grounds to Aryamanesh' assasination.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Saturday, December 05, 2009
21 Azar - liberation of Iranian Azarbaijan
His Imperial Majesty climbing into a hurricane aircraft during the campaign to liberate Iranian Azarbaijan from Soviet occupation.In 1946 (21 Azar, 1325) the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces (Army & Air Force), under the direct command of the young Shah of Iran (only 40 Days after receiving his pilot certificate and having less than 100 flying hours), the Shah personally made four reconnaissance flights over enemy-occupied territory; this was the first time that the head of state of a country would personally fly over a war zone. Thanks to the bravery of the Imperial Armed Forces and leadership of His Imperial Majesty, the Soviets were driven out of Iranian Azarbaijan and the soviet "puppet" government of Pishevari was dissolved with many of its members seeking asylum under the protection of their masters in the Soviet Union.
Source
21 Azar - Liberation-Victory ParadePayandeh Iran!
Dorood bar ravAneh pAkeh Shahanshah Aryamehr!
UPDATE 1: HIM Reza Pahlavi's statement on the anniversary of 21 Azar (pdf).
Sunday, November 29, 2009
HIM Reza Pahlavi II - CPI conference - 2008
HIM Reza Pahlavi II remarks at the CPI (Constitutional Party of Iran) conference in Washington DC - November 22, 2008.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Shah of Iran - nation-wide reform and progress
In the above clip the late Shah of Iran adresses nation-wide advancements and highlights how the "black forces" (i.e. religious fundamentalists) are staunchly against Iran progressing, advancing, and modernizing. His Imperial Majesty on many occasions warns the Iranian people about these reactionary black forces (the islamic factions) and the red forces (communists/marxists) and the threat these two forces pose to the nation.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Shah of Iran's visit to Switzerland - 1961 - Interview
Shah of Iran's visit to Switzerland - 1961 - Interview
(October 1961) The Shah of Iran is interviewed by Bernard Béguin from Swiss TV on his position vis-a-vis the USSR and the way in which His Imperial Majesty sees the future of His country. It evokes in particular the ongoing land reform ("White Revolution") and the path towards economic prosperity.
PM Dr. Ali Amini of Iran visit to Switzerland - 1962
Passing through Switzerland, on his return to Tehran after attending a meeting in London, Dr. Ali Amini, Iranian Prime Minister, is interviewed by Swiss TV.
(October 1961) The Shah of Iran is interviewed by Bernard Béguin from Swiss TV on his position vis-a-vis the USSR and the way in which His Imperial Majesty sees the future of His country. It evokes in particular the ongoing land reform ("White Revolution") and the path towards economic prosperity.
PM Dr. Ali Amini of Iran visit to Switzerland - 1962
Passing through Switzerland, on his return to Tehran after attending a meeting in London, Dr. Ali Amini, Iranian Prime Minister, is interviewed by Swiss TV.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Shah Of Iran Critisizing Britain - 28/01/1974
With the late Shah of Iran fervently safe-guarding his country's national interests, at times at the expense of arrogant powers, it is not a huge surprise that these very same arrogant powers took their chance to remove him from power and support the establishment of a backward fanatic islamic republic which would stop Iran's swift progress, increasing prosperity, and modernization campaign. The truth of this matter is that Britain could not stand to see a strong, prosperous, and independent Iran and for that the Iranian people paid dearly for.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Only in Iran under Islamic occupation...
I just read this France24 report reporting the terrorist Islamic regime occupying Iran is considering declaring Neda Agha Soltan a martyr of the Islamic Republic! I don't know whether to laugh or cry. They kill this young innocent girl in cold blood and then somehow manage to pull a straight face by saying "enemies of the Islamic Republic killed her to tarnish the clean image of the CLEAN (?!) theocracy and that they are now considering to declare her a martyr of the Islamic Republic"! They are shamelessly saying Neda died "for the cause of the Islamic Republic"!!!
The "CLEAN" record of this hell-sent Islamic Republic includes amongst other things the mass-murder of thousands of political prisoners and Iranian state/military officials since their armed takeover in 1979; imprisonment and torture of freedomseeking Iranians; abolishment of freedom of religion/ freedom of speech/ freedom of assembly - i.e. basic human rights; the humiliation of Iranian women by according to their Islamic values considering them as sub-humans worth half that of a man; again in line with their islamic values - brutal acts of stoning, limbs dismemberment, eye gouging, and hanging; endangering Iranian national security by imposing an 8 year war with Iraq resulting in a million dead and collapse of the Iranian economy; acting against Iranian national interests by harbouring and funding islamic terrorist organisations; attacking and occupying the U.S. embassy holding staff hostage; fostering sky-rocketing unemployment, inflation, drug addiction, and prostitution; the systematic destruction of pre-Islamic Iranian cultural heritage sites and hate-filled propoaganda through their education system against Iran's pre-Islamic cultural heritage and history - instead superimposing foreign arabo-islamic cultural values on Iranians through force and intimidation; endangering Iranian national interests by threatening other nations....
Neda was a young Iranian girl who as millions of Iranians yearn to free their country from the yolk of Islamic oppression and live in a free, democratic, and secular society. She was standing on the sidelines of an anti-regime protest when she was cowardly shot by a member of the Islamic Republic's militia, the basij. Her story has been widely published across the world and I reported the story some months back when the horrific video that had caught her death was distributed through youtube along with hundreds of other videoclips showing the brutality of the Islamic Republic against Iranian freedomseekers (see link 1, link 2).
Only an illiterate fool not in touch with reality would fall for this kind of shameless lies.
UPDATE 1: Neda Agha Soltan's mother strongly rejects the terrorist Islamic Republic's blood money and her daughter being named a "martyr of the Islamic Republic" in return for her public acceptance that Neda was killed by "enemies of the revolution". YOUTUBE CLIP.
The "CLEAN" record of this hell-sent Islamic Republic includes amongst other things the mass-murder of thousands of political prisoners and Iranian state/military officials since their armed takeover in 1979; imprisonment and torture of freedomseeking Iranians; abolishment of freedom of religion/ freedom of speech/ freedom of assembly - i.e. basic human rights; the humiliation of Iranian women by according to their Islamic values considering them as sub-humans worth half that of a man; again in line with their islamic values - brutal acts of stoning, limbs dismemberment, eye gouging, and hanging; endangering Iranian national security by imposing an 8 year war with Iraq resulting in a million dead and collapse of the Iranian economy; acting against Iranian national interests by harbouring and funding islamic terrorist organisations; attacking and occupying the U.S. embassy holding staff hostage; fostering sky-rocketing unemployment, inflation, drug addiction, and prostitution; the systematic destruction of pre-Islamic Iranian cultural heritage sites and hate-filled propoaganda through their education system against Iran's pre-Islamic cultural heritage and history - instead superimposing foreign arabo-islamic cultural values on Iranians through force and intimidation; endangering Iranian national interests by threatening other nations....
Neda was a young Iranian girl who as millions of Iranians yearn to free their country from the yolk of Islamic oppression and live in a free, democratic, and secular society. She was standing on the sidelines of an anti-regime protest when she was cowardly shot by a member of the Islamic Republic's militia, the basij. Her story has been widely published across the world and I reported the story some months back when the horrific video that had caught her death was distributed through youtube along with hundreds of other videoclips showing the brutality of the Islamic Republic against Iranian freedomseekers (see link 1, link 2).
Only an illiterate fool not in touch with reality would fall for this kind of shameless lies.
UPDATE 1: Neda Agha Soltan's mother strongly rejects the terrorist Islamic Republic's blood money and her daughter being named a "martyr of the Islamic Republic" in return for her public acceptance that Neda was killed by "enemies of the revolution". YOUTUBE CLIP.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
"Ey Iran"
A compatriot named "Damon", plays the true Iranian national anthem ("Ey Iran") on a rooftop in the Iranian capital Tehran.
I hope that soon, with the ending and defeat of the savage and anti-Iranian 2nd Arabo-Muslim occupation (in the shape of the Islamic Republic), the tunes of the Iranian national anthem will be played in all cities across Iran.
Until that day...
I hope that soon, with the ending and defeat of the savage and anti-Iranian 2nd Arabo-Muslim occupation (in the shape of the Islamic Republic), the tunes of the Iranian national anthem will be played in all cities across Iran.
Until that day...
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish roots
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on the Jewish world hide an astonishing secret, evidence uncovered by The Daily Telegraph shows.
By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat
Published: 7:30AM BST 03 Oct 2009
A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.
A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.
The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.
The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.
Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.
Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.
"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.
"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."
A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.
"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.
The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.
Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.
The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.
During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.
However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.
Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'
Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."
Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.
By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat
Published: 7:30AM BST 03 Oct 2009
A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.
A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.
The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.
The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.
Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.
Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.
"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.
"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."
A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.
"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.
The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.
Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.
The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.
During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.
However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.
Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'
Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."
Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The clever way to impose sanctions on Iran
Supporting the people is the best route to blocking Iran's Bomb, says Reza Pahlavi.
By Reza Pahlavi
Published: 7:02AM BST 30 Sep 2009
Tomorrow, the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (known as the P5+1), will sit down with Iran in the latest attempt to ease increasing global anxiety over the country's nuclear programme. The threat of new sanctions hangs in the air. We have been here before: deadline after deadline, sanction after sanction, we return to the same old dance, the only real difference being that the Islamic Republic is inching ever closer to the Bomb. So perhaps now is the time to try something new. In anticipation of the October 1 meeting, the P5+1 must embrace their greatest ally in the war on nuclear proliferation: the people of Iran.
Until now, the Islamic Republic has not responded to external pressure from the international community. No amount of sanctions has worked. Instead, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad soaks up every opportunity to perform on the world stage, entertaining his audience of cool and collected clerics. But those clerics were not so composed on that June day when hundreds of thousands of Iranian people poured on to the streets, demanding an end to fundamentalist tyranny and the regime's oppression of their human rights.
In stark contrast to its reaction to international pressure, the regime's response to the internal uprising was immediate. Quivering with fear, it instantly detained more than 4,000 of its own people, suffocating their roaring cries for freedom and democracy. Students and journalists, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers, young and old are still being held, clubbed, raped and tortured by the Islamic clerical regime. Hundreds of others stand falsely accused, helplessly awaiting trial without rights or representation.
Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran urged the UN to appoint a special human rights envoy during last week's meeting of the General Assembly to investigate the Iranian government's egregious record of abuse. And still, suffering under a brutal regime that threatens their very right to life, the Iranian people continue to plead for their liberties, fight for their freedoms and scream for the world's support.
The clerics' fearful and nervous response to the people's uprising demonstrated that the biggest threat to their survival in power comes from within their own borders. Contrary to the state-run press and propaganda, the regime's biggest enemy is not the West; it is its own people.
By supporting the Iranian people and their struggle for human rights, by elevating the importance of their liberties, the West will find its greatest ally on the nuclear issue. Empowering the opposition movement will encourage and prolong internal dissent, and sustaining that internal unrest is the key to cracking the clerical code.
While sanctions can in fact prove to be a useful tool in the shed of diplomacy, they result in the suffering of a nation's citizens, victimising the innocent many for the sins of the stubborn few. For sanctions to truly be effective in Iran, human rights have to be put on equal footing with the nuclear concern. Many of my Iranian compatriots have indicated to me that they would be willing to add to their hardships in the short term only if they believe that sanctions will curtail the lifespan of clerical oppression and cure their want of human rights.
In 1986, the United States led a worldwide campaign for human rights and equality in South Africa when it passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, banning US investment in the country. Disinvestment sanctions were about civil rights and human rights, and other world powers quickly followed suit. Most importantly, the removal of apartheid laws and the release of political prisoners were necessary preconditions to the lifting of sanctions. Those sanctions worked. The South African people suffered a deep recession in the short term, but to this day, no South African has forgotten the importance of those preconditions and the long-term liberation they brought to them as a people.
In the case of Iran, US foreign policy and international pressure are reaching their limit. External sanctions that are imposed solely to shape Iran's nuclear policy are unlikely to ever decrease the number of centrifuges that enrich uranium. Furthermore, if the issue of enrichment continues to trump the moral fight for the most basic human liberties – namely the right to free and fair elections and the freedom of speech – then the P5+1 will be seen to have abandoned the Iranian people to their plight. Alternatively, if the West enforces new sanctions that are intrinsically tied to the national outcry for freedom, they have armed their greatest ally with the powerful weapon of international solidarity in the struggle against the Islamic regime. This uprising can change the entire fabric of stability in the Middle East.
So, while the world toils over yellowcake, the people of Iran still believe in their green movement for freedom, hope and human rights. It is time for international leaders to stand behind the human rights of the Iranian people. In so doing, they will entrust the Iranian people with the power to resolve the nuclear issue.
The writer is Crown Prince of Iran
By Reza Pahlavi
Published: 7:02AM BST 30 Sep 2009
Tomorrow, the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (known as the P5+1), will sit down with Iran in the latest attempt to ease increasing global anxiety over the country's nuclear programme. The threat of new sanctions hangs in the air. We have been here before: deadline after deadline, sanction after sanction, we return to the same old dance, the only real difference being that the Islamic Republic is inching ever closer to the Bomb. So perhaps now is the time to try something new. In anticipation of the October 1 meeting, the P5+1 must embrace their greatest ally in the war on nuclear proliferation: the people of Iran.
Until now, the Islamic Republic has not responded to external pressure from the international community. No amount of sanctions has worked. Instead, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad soaks up every opportunity to perform on the world stage, entertaining his audience of cool and collected clerics. But those clerics were not so composed on that June day when hundreds of thousands of Iranian people poured on to the streets, demanding an end to fundamentalist tyranny and the regime's oppression of their human rights.
In stark contrast to its reaction to international pressure, the regime's response to the internal uprising was immediate. Quivering with fear, it instantly detained more than 4,000 of its own people, suffocating their roaring cries for freedom and democracy. Students and journalists, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers, young and old are still being held, clubbed, raped and tortured by the Islamic clerical regime. Hundreds of others stand falsely accused, helplessly awaiting trial without rights or representation.
Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran urged the UN to appoint a special human rights envoy during last week's meeting of the General Assembly to investigate the Iranian government's egregious record of abuse. And still, suffering under a brutal regime that threatens their very right to life, the Iranian people continue to plead for their liberties, fight for their freedoms and scream for the world's support.
The clerics' fearful and nervous response to the people's uprising demonstrated that the biggest threat to their survival in power comes from within their own borders. Contrary to the state-run press and propaganda, the regime's biggest enemy is not the West; it is its own people.
By supporting the Iranian people and their struggle for human rights, by elevating the importance of their liberties, the West will find its greatest ally on the nuclear issue. Empowering the opposition movement will encourage and prolong internal dissent, and sustaining that internal unrest is the key to cracking the clerical code.
While sanctions can in fact prove to be a useful tool in the shed of diplomacy, they result in the suffering of a nation's citizens, victimising the innocent many for the sins of the stubborn few. For sanctions to truly be effective in Iran, human rights have to be put on equal footing with the nuclear concern. Many of my Iranian compatriots have indicated to me that they would be willing to add to their hardships in the short term only if they believe that sanctions will curtail the lifespan of clerical oppression and cure their want of human rights.
In 1986, the United States led a worldwide campaign for human rights and equality in South Africa when it passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, banning US investment in the country. Disinvestment sanctions were about civil rights and human rights, and other world powers quickly followed suit. Most importantly, the removal of apartheid laws and the release of political prisoners were necessary preconditions to the lifting of sanctions. Those sanctions worked. The South African people suffered a deep recession in the short term, but to this day, no South African has forgotten the importance of those preconditions and the long-term liberation they brought to them as a people.
In the case of Iran, US foreign policy and international pressure are reaching their limit. External sanctions that are imposed solely to shape Iran's nuclear policy are unlikely to ever decrease the number of centrifuges that enrich uranium. Furthermore, if the issue of enrichment continues to trump the moral fight for the most basic human liberties – namely the right to free and fair elections and the freedom of speech – then the P5+1 will be seen to have abandoned the Iranian people to their plight. Alternatively, if the West enforces new sanctions that are intrinsically tied to the national outcry for freedom, they have armed their greatest ally with the powerful weapon of international solidarity in the struggle against the Islamic regime. This uprising can change the entire fabric of stability in the Middle East.
So, while the world toils over yellowcake, the people of Iran still believe in their green movement for freedom, hope and human rights. It is time for international leaders to stand behind the human rights of the Iranian people. In so doing, they will entrust the Iranian people with the power to resolve the nuclear issue.
The writer is Crown Prince of Iran
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Death to the "Supreme Leader's" minions!
Crowd chants:
"Basij get lost!"
"Death to the [Supreme] Leaders minions!"
"Basij get lost!"
"Death to the [Supreme] Leaders minions!"
Anti-Regime Demonstrations on Islamic Repiublic's "Jerusalem Day"
On 20 September (2009) Iranians and friends of Iranians in Stockholm, Sweden, gathered in centre of the Swedish capital to stage a counter-protest against the annual "Jerusalem Day" which is staged worldwide by the terrorist Islamic Republic and its supporters in support of Palestinians and Hezbollah. The "Jerusalem Day" demonstrations outside Iran are staged predominantly by arab muslims who support the Islamic Republic's terror over the Iranian population, and in the UK in particular also has the support of many leftist organisations. The tiny group of arab "Jerusalem Day" demonstrators in Stockholm was met by a steadfast Iranian counter-response with slogans including:
"Death to Hezbollah!"
"Death to the Islamic Republic!"
"Death to Russia!" (a steadfast supporter of the Islamic Republic)
"No to Palestine! No to Lebanon! I will give my life for Iran!"
"Get lost murderers!"
"Shut up murderers!"
"Khameini (the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader) is a murderer!"
Across Iran on the state-staged "Jerusalem Day" demonstrations Iranians also took the opportunity to stage their counter-demonstrations against the terrorist Islamic Republic's official demonstrations - millions of Iranians across Iran turned out to express their rejection of the terrorist Islamic Republic and their "Jerusalem Day" - instead of the Islamic Republic's slogans of "Death to Israel! Death to the USA!", Iranians responded with the following slogans:
"Death to Russia!"
"Death to China!"
"Death to Dictators!" (indirect reference to the Islamic Republic leadership)
"Death to You!" (indirect reference to AhmadiNejad and Ali Khameini the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader)
"No to Gaza (Palestine)! No to Lebanon! I will give my life for Iran!"
"Today is Iran Day!"
"State Broadcasting is the shame of the nation!"
"Dictator! Dictator! This is our last warning! We are ready to rise up!"
"Don't be afraid! Don't be afraid! We are all together!"
In the following photo from Tehran you can see Iranians holding state provided banners with "Death to Israel" on them however in clear rejection of the terrorist islamic regime the demonstrators have crossed out Israel and replaced it with "Russia", "China", and "Hugo Chavez" (major backers of the mullah's)!
In the following video you can witness a gang of "basiji's" (religious zealot thugs working for the regime who roam the streets with knives, daggers, clubs, chains, and pistols!) attacking Iranian anti-regime demonstrators however as these gather strength they start fleeing! At least one of the "basiji's" motorbikes is set on fire and towards the end of the clip the Islamic Republic's security forces have arrived to the scene and have shot rounds of tear gas into the crowd, hence the abrupt end to the clip.
More clips from the Islamic Republic "Jerusalem Day" which Iranians turned into "Iran Day":
This is an amusing clip. The Islamic Republic "Jerusalem Day" organizer, on top of a truck, is using a megaphone to chant officials slogans of "Death to Israel and Death to Russia" however the crowd is not repeating the slogans but are replying with "Death to Russia" (one of the Islamic Republic's main supporters)! And when the organizer chants "Death to anti-Islamic Republic supporters!" the crowd chants back "Death to Dictator!" :)
In this clip a Hezbollah banner is brought down with the crowd chanting "burn it!"
"Death to Hezbollah!"
"Death to the Islamic Republic!"
"Death to Russia!" (a steadfast supporter of the Islamic Republic)
"No to Palestine! No to Lebanon! I will give my life for Iran!"
"Get lost murderers!"
"Shut up murderers!"
"Khameini (the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader) is a murderer!"
Across Iran on the state-staged "Jerusalem Day" demonstrations Iranians also took the opportunity to stage their counter-demonstrations against the terrorist Islamic Republic's official demonstrations - millions of Iranians across Iran turned out to express their rejection of the terrorist Islamic Republic and their "Jerusalem Day" - instead of the Islamic Republic's slogans of "Death to Israel! Death to the USA!", Iranians responded with the following slogans:
"Death to Russia!"
"Death to China!"
"Death to Dictators!" (indirect reference to the Islamic Republic leadership)
"Death to You!" (indirect reference to AhmadiNejad and Ali Khameini the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader)
"No to Gaza (Palestine)! No to Lebanon! I will give my life for Iran!"
"Today is Iran Day!"
"State Broadcasting is the shame of the nation!"
"Dictator! Dictator! This is our last warning! We are ready to rise up!"
"Don't be afraid! Don't be afraid! We are all together!"
In the following photo from Tehran you can see Iranians holding state provided banners with "Death to Israel" on them however in clear rejection of the terrorist islamic regime the demonstrators have crossed out Israel and replaced it with "Russia", "China", and "Hugo Chavez" (major backers of the mullah's)!
In the following video you can witness a gang of "basiji's" (religious zealot thugs working for the regime who roam the streets with knives, daggers, clubs, chains, and pistols!) attacking Iranian anti-regime demonstrators however as these gather strength they start fleeing! At least one of the "basiji's" motorbikes is set on fire and towards the end of the clip the Islamic Republic's security forces have arrived to the scene and have shot rounds of tear gas into the crowd, hence the abrupt end to the clip.
More clips from the Islamic Republic "Jerusalem Day" which Iranians turned into "Iran Day":
This is an amusing clip. The Islamic Republic "Jerusalem Day" organizer, on top of a truck, is using a megaphone to chant officials slogans of "Death to Israel and Death to Russia" however the crowd is not repeating the slogans but are replying with "Death to Russia" (one of the Islamic Republic's main supporters)! And when the organizer chants "Death to anti-Islamic Republic supporters!" the crowd chants back "Death to Dictator!" :)
In this clip a Hezbollah banner is brought down with the crowd chanting "burn it!"
The mullah's rewrite of Iran's ancient history
The mullah's rewrite of Iran's ancient history: Don't overlook this atrocity
The Islamic Republic's butchery of Iran's ancient history is beyond belief and comprehension.
The clerics' audacity and blatant hatred for Iran spews from every page written by approved scholars. Iranology suffers from the lack of sufficient primary sources — especially native — making the task of balanced fact-finding more difficult. But any degree of bias observed in foreign sources about ancient Persians is nothing compared to the negativity, falsehood, and insufficient information provided by the Islamic Republic to Iranian children.
A quick survey of 2005-06 history textbooks for middle school (grades 6-8) shows that over 1300 years of Iranian history as one of the ancient superpowers prior to the Moslem invasion is covered in approximately 37 pages while more than 2.5 volumes of materials are dedicated to Islam, its founder, and Iran's post-Islamic history (mid-7th century to present). With more than half of the 37 pages devoted to pictures and maps, it is fair to say that 1300 years of history is crammed into 17 pages of actual written content. It goes without saying that putting this part of history in 6th grade textbook provides a convenient forum for simplifying materials.
In reviewing all of these 37 pages dedicated to one of the most important ancient civilizations, the following general observations are made. There are no dates associated with any of the eras, characters, or major events. It is difficult to understand how history can be taught without dates. Only a few kings are mentioned for each dynasty and no explanation is provided as to why those few are named in the first place. No major events such as wars, peace treaties, or social and political developments are mentioned. In short, there are no discussions as to what 1300 years of ancient Iranian history contributed to civilization. There is nothing in the 37 pages indicating that the Achaemenid Persia was the first ancient world empire, and prior to Islam Iran was a superpower for 13 centuries.
The overall tone is negativity towards Iranian monarchs, who define the nation's culture and history, and all leaders of the Iranian communities, who helped build and protect the country. The ancient Persians are described as greedy, unjust, chaotic, and selfish. According to the textbook, Iranian leaders accomplished nothing of importance for the common good, and that the people of Iran hated their leaders and way of life. There is no mention of the ancient Iranian prophet, Zoroaster, who is credited with being the first monotheist. Most scholars agree that Zoroaster lived around 1700 BCE. That makes Zoroastrianism the dominant religion in Iran for at least 2700 years, and yet the middle school history textbook barely mentions it, let alone its teachings.
There is nothing in the 37 pages about Persian society, daily life, commerce, warfare, technology, and international diplomacy. As a misogynistic regime, there is no hint as to the relatively liberal status of women in ancient Persia. The names of famous Iranian women who were queens, monarchs and warriors are completely disregarded. There is no discussion about the development of the Persian language or the invention of cuneiform. As a history textbook, it is baffling to find that myths are actually taught as history. Incorrect information and religious propaganda are boundless. In short, Iran's ancient history has been sterilized and faces extinction.
Median Empire (728-550 BCE) - 5 pages
The events leading up to the conquest of Assyria by Babylonian-Median alliance is not discussed. The textbook claims that because of the friendship of the Lydians and the Babylonians, the Medes were no longer threatened by external forces. The Median Empire is marginalized and its downfall is attributed to the kings' life of leisure, greedy nobility, abuse of the people, and high taxes collected from neighboring tribes.
Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE) - 10 pages
The Achaemenid kings important to world history such as Cyrus and Darius are not referred to as "the Great." Incorrect and inadequate information are given regarding the origin of the name "Achaemenid," the relationships between Cyrus and Darius or Cyrus and the Median ruling house, conflict between the Persians and the Medes, and the conquest of Lydia and other nations by Cyrus. The book also suggests that Cyrus' motivation for conquest was to become wealthy. Nothing is mentioned of Cyrus' famous bill of rights cylinder and his decree in freeing the Jewish captives from Babylonia while taking on the financial responsibility to rebuild their temple. No mention of ancient Jewish communities was noted. The book states that some experts believe Cyrus was great, as if Iranians do not. No reason is given as to why he would be considered great even by his own enemies.
The events surrounding the death of Cyrus's younger son Bardiya and his relationship with his older brother and king, Cambyses, are incorrect. The role of the usurper Gaumata responsible for Bardiya's death is misrepresented at the expense of Iranian leaders, who saved the fragile empire from destruction. The book claims that the Median and Persian ruling families were unjust and cruel to the people. Rebellions without details are generally emphasized to show that the Persian rulers were hated. The brilliant administrative skills and innovations of Darius and the ability of the Iranian leaders in managing an unprecedented empire comprising of 23 nations are not mentioned. The book states that the Greeks were the most important neighbors to the Persians when in fact the Achaemenid political strategy considered Mesopotamia, Egypt, Central Asia, and India as the most important regions. None of the famous Persian-Greek wars or their aftermath is mentioned. The fall of the Achaemenids is attributed to the fact that nobody had any say in the matters of the country but the monarch, and that is why they eventually became corrupt. Apparently, the greed of the nobility caused further suffering for the people. Alexander's invasion of Iran is mentioned in one sentence, and the bravery of the Iranian defenders during that invasion is not discussed.
Alexander/Seleucids (330-247 BCE) - 2 pages
Only two pages are dedicated to this era. Nothing substantive is mentioned. Alexander's desire and subsequent actions to mix the Persians and the Greeks are not discussed nor the effect, if any, of Hellenization on the Achaemenid Empire. The textbook does not cover how Alexander used Iranian soldiers, commanders, and governors for his eastern conquests and management of the empire.
Parthians (247 BCE-224 CE) - 9 pages
According to the textbook, the Iranian noble families helped the Parthians in pushing out the foreign Seleucids, but only for personal gain. The Romans are slave-owners mostly in pursuit of leisure. Jesus Christ is introduced as savior of the people from the hands of the evil Romans. The textbook states that Jesus appeared in Palestine during these difficult times while his Jewish heritage is omitted. Jesus is portrayed in a limited but political capacity. He is defined as a defender of those in suffering. According to the textbook, the Romans, who abused the Christians, after some time decided to become Christians too. The fall of the Parthians is attributed to the weakness of the kings, greed and power hungry nobility, and Parthian liberal attitude towards religious matters.
Sasanians (224-651 CE) - 11 pages
The book claims that Ardeshir I, founder of the Sasanians, rose to power because he promised the Zoroastrian priests that he would revive the religion if they support him in overthrowing the Parthians since the Parthians did not know how to manage the country. Ardeshir is credited with specifically stating that the rise of Buddhism and Christianity is one of the unattended problems. According to the book, those Iranian nobles who supported Ardeshir did so only for personal ambition. However, despite the rise of the Sasanians, religious chaos continued because people were free to practice their religion.
The relationship between Armenia and Persia is marginalized, and the continuous Roman-Persian conflict over Armenia is not discussed. Mani and Mazdak, two radical and independent socio-religious figures, are sympathized as oppose to the Sasanian rulers. The political and social implications caused by the respective preachings of Mani and Mazdak are not discussed. The textbook accuses Sasanian rulers from becoming very wealthy by taxing people and that most of the tax collected was not used for the benefit of the people.
The textbook incorrectly claims that the Sasanian society was divided into two classes: the nobility and the common folk. It further claims that nobility had many privileges including education while commoners were not allowed to attend school. Nothing is mentioned of the large middle class, the dehghans, created by the Sasanian monarchs to balance the society. An alleged letter from the prophet of Islam to Sasanian king asking him to convert as well as the king's audacity to reject such an invitation are mentioned as well-known history. Not surprisingly, the book claims that the righteous Moslem invaders were able to defeat the corrupt and cruel Sasanians, and bring freedom and justice to the people, who willingly accepted Islam.
Volumes of books in many languages have been written on Iran's 1300 years of pre-Islamic history. One of the most respected, comprehensive set is The Cambridge History of Iran which has devoted 2600 pages without pictures to this era. Yet the Islamic Republic only found enough written material to cover 17 full pages directed to 6th grade students most of which contain deliberate misinformation and anti-Iranian sentiment. The mullahs are using Iran and its resources to further a warped religious agenda at the detriment of the Iranian people and the international community. In this process, they are systematically destroying a nation's understanding of its past given such a past is more advanced, humane, and liberal than the Islamic Republic's Constitution of the 21st century. Stay tuned for more on the ongoing Iranian genocide at the hands of the Islamofascist clerics.
Sheda Vasseghi has a Masters in Ancient History with emphasis on ancient Persia. She handles public relations for persepolis3d.com and is a member of the Azadegan Foundation. Ms. Vasseghi is a regular contributor to political magazines such as WorldTribune.com.
The Islamic Republic's butchery of Iran's ancient history is beyond belief and comprehension.
The clerics' audacity and blatant hatred for Iran spews from every page written by approved scholars. Iranology suffers from the lack of sufficient primary sources — especially native — making the task of balanced fact-finding more difficult. But any degree of bias observed in foreign sources about ancient Persians is nothing compared to the negativity, falsehood, and insufficient information provided by the Islamic Republic to Iranian children.
A quick survey of 2005-06 history textbooks for middle school (grades 6-8) shows that over 1300 years of Iranian history as one of the ancient superpowers prior to the Moslem invasion is covered in approximately 37 pages while more than 2.5 volumes of materials are dedicated to Islam, its founder, and Iran's post-Islamic history (mid-7th century to present). With more than half of the 37 pages devoted to pictures and maps, it is fair to say that 1300 years of history is crammed into 17 pages of actual written content. It goes without saying that putting this part of history in 6th grade textbook provides a convenient forum for simplifying materials.
In reviewing all of these 37 pages dedicated to one of the most important ancient civilizations, the following general observations are made. There are no dates associated with any of the eras, characters, or major events. It is difficult to understand how history can be taught without dates. Only a few kings are mentioned for each dynasty and no explanation is provided as to why those few are named in the first place. No major events such as wars, peace treaties, or social and political developments are mentioned. In short, there are no discussions as to what 1300 years of ancient Iranian history contributed to civilization. There is nothing in the 37 pages indicating that the Achaemenid Persia was the first ancient world empire, and prior to Islam Iran was a superpower for 13 centuries.
The overall tone is negativity towards Iranian monarchs, who define the nation's culture and history, and all leaders of the Iranian communities, who helped build and protect the country. The ancient Persians are described as greedy, unjust, chaotic, and selfish. According to the textbook, Iranian leaders accomplished nothing of importance for the common good, and that the people of Iran hated their leaders and way of life. There is no mention of the ancient Iranian prophet, Zoroaster, who is credited with being the first monotheist. Most scholars agree that Zoroaster lived around 1700 BCE. That makes Zoroastrianism the dominant religion in Iran for at least 2700 years, and yet the middle school history textbook barely mentions it, let alone its teachings.
There is nothing in the 37 pages about Persian society, daily life, commerce, warfare, technology, and international diplomacy. As a misogynistic regime, there is no hint as to the relatively liberal status of women in ancient Persia. The names of famous Iranian women who were queens, monarchs and warriors are completely disregarded. There is no discussion about the development of the Persian language or the invention of cuneiform. As a history textbook, it is baffling to find that myths are actually taught as history. Incorrect information and religious propaganda are boundless. In short, Iran's ancient history has been sterilized and faces extinction.
Median Empire (728-550 BCE) - 5 pages
The events leading up to the conquest of Assyria by Babylonian-Median alliance is not discussed. The textbook claims that because of the friendship of the Lydians and the Babylonians, the Medes were no longer threatened by external forces. The Median Empire is marginalized and its downfall is attributed to the kings' life of leisure, greedy nobility, abuse of the people, and high taxes collected from neighboring tribes.
Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE) - 10 pages
The Achaemenid kings important to world history such as Cyrus and Darius are not referred to as "the Great." Incorrect and inadequate information are given regarding the origin of the name "Achaemenid," the relationships between Cyrus and Darius or Cyrus and the Median ruling house, conflict between the Persians and the Medes, and the conquest of Lydia and other nations by Cyrus. The book also suggests that Cyrus' motivation for conquest was to become wealthy. Nothing is mentioned of Cyrus' famous bill of rights cylinder and his decree in freeing the Jewish captives from Babylonia while taking on the financial responsibility to rebuild their temple. No mention of ancient Jewish communities was noted. The book states that some experts believe Cyrus was great, as if Iranians do not. No reason is given as to why he would be considered great even by his own enemies.
The events surrounding the death of Cyrus's younger son Bardiya and his relationship with his older brother and king, Cambyses, are incorrect. The role of the usurper Gaumata responsible for Bardiya's death is misrepresented at the expense of Iranian leaders, who saved the fragile empire from destruction. The book claims that the Median and Persian ruling families were unjust and cruel to the people. Rebellions without details are generally emphasized to show that the Persian rulers were hated. The brilliant administrative skills and innovations of Darius and the ability of the Iranian leaders in managing an unprecedented empire comprising of 23 nations are not mentioned. The book states that the Greeks were the most important neighbors to the Persians when in fact the Achaemenid political strategy considered Mesopotamia, Egypt, Central Asia, and India as the most important regions. None of the famous Persian-Greek wars or their aftermath is mentioned. The fall of the Achaemenids is attributed to the fact that nobody had any say in the matters of the country but the monarch, and that is why they eventually became corrupt. Apparently, the greed of the nobility caused further suffering for the people. Alexander's invasion of Iran is mentioned in one sentence, and the bravery of the Iranian defenders during that invasion is not discussed.
Alexander/Seleucids (330-247 BCE) - 2 pages
Only two pages are dedicated to this era. Nothing substantive is mentioned. Alexander's desire and subsequent actions to mix the Persians and the Greeks are not discussed nor the effect, if any, of Hellenization on the Achaemenid Empire. The textbook does not cover how Alexander used Iranian soldiers, commanders, and governors for his eastern conquests and management of the empire.
Parthians (247 BCE-224 CE) - 9 pages
According to the textbook, the Iranian noble families helped the Parthians in pushing out the foreign Seleucids, but only for personal gain. The Romans are slave-owners mostly in pursuit of leisure. Jesus Christ is introduced as savior of the people from the hands of the evil Romans. The textbook states that Jesus appeared in Palestine during these difficult times while his Jewish heritage is omitted. Jesus is portrayed in a limited but political capacity. He is defined as a defender of those in suffering. According to the textbook, the Romans, who abused the Christians, after some time decided to become Christians too. The fall of the Parthians is attributed to the weakness of the kings, greed and power hungry nobility, and Parthian liberal attitude towards religious matters.
Sasanians (224-651 CE) - 11 pages
The book claims that Ardeshir I, founder of the Sasanians, rose to power because he promised the Zoroastrian priests that he would revive the religion if they support him in overthrowing the Parthians since the Parthians did not know how to manage the country. Ardeshir is credited with specifically stating that the rise of Buddhism and Christianity is one of the unattended problems. According to the book, those Iranian nobles who supported Ardeshir did so only for personal ambition. However, despite the rise of the Sasanians, religious chaos continued because people were free to practice their religion.
The relationship between Armenia and Persia is marginalized, and the continuous Roman-Persian conflict over Armenia is not discussed. Mani and Mazdak, two radical and independent socio-religious figures, are sympathized as oppose to the Sasanian rulers. The political and social implications caused by the respective preachings of Mani and Mazdak are not discussed. The textbook accuses Sasanian rulers from becoming very wealthy by taxing people and that most of the tax collected was not used for the benefit of the people.
The textbook incorrectly claims that the Sasanian society was divided into two classes: the nobility and the common folk. It further claims that nobility had many privileges including education while commoners were not allowed to attend school. Nothing is mentioned of the large middle class, the dehghans, created by the Sasanian monarchs to balance the society. An alleged letter from the prophet of Islam to Sasanian king asking him to convert as well as the king's audacity to reject such an invitation are mentioned as well-known history. Not surprisingly, the book claims that the righteous Moslem invaders were able to defeat the corrupt and cruel Sasanians, and bring freedom and justice to the people, who willingly accepted Islam.
Volumes of books in many languages have been written on Iran's 1300 years of pre-Islamic history. One of the most respected, comprehensive set is The Cambridge History of Iran which has devoted 2600 pages without pictures to this era. Yet the Islamic Republic only found enough written material to cover 17 full pages directed to 6th grade students most of which contain deliberate misinformation and anti-Iranian sentiment. The mullahs are using Iran and its resources to further a warped religious agenda at the detriment of the Iranian people and the international community. In this process, they are systematically destroying a nation's understanding of its past given such a past is more advanced, humane, and liberal than the Islamic Republic's Constitution of the 21st century. Stay tuned for more on the ongoing Iranian genocide at the hands of the Islamofascist clerics.
Sheda Vasseghi has a Masters in Ancient History with emphasis on ancient Persia. She handles public relations for persepolis3d.com and is a member of the Azadegan Foundation. Ms. Vasseghi is a regular contributor to political magazines such as WorldTribune.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
