Posted on 01/03/2018 4:21:27 PM PST by Kaslin
Pundits have marveled at what a big surprise it is that ordinary Iranians have revolted against the mullahs. It's a surprise to them, but no surprise to American Thinker's readers, whose Iranian contributors have kept us posted for years about what is really going on in Iran.
Just look at these pieces by Hamid Bahrami, Reza Shafiee, Hassan Mahmoudi, Amil Imani, and Shahriar Kia. Over and over again, these writers warned there is a problem, and now Iranians' protests against corruption, soaring prices, environmental ruin, Revolutionary Guards thuggery, poverty, and bank collapses have become the "surprise" story of the day.
One writer at Politico correctly noted that the "surprise" stems from reporters covering only Tehran's elites, not the doings in the hinterlands. The hinterlands, of course, are where the trouble started, beginning in Mashhad, and these are the parts of the country American Thinker's writers have been bringing us information on. These writers showed long ago that what we are seeing now isn't your garden-variety protests of city elites seeking "reform" or "fair elections." These protests are smaller, but they're the real kind, revolutionary ones, actual calls for the overthrow of the regime and the initiation of a new government. Protests now aren't coming from the comfortable elites who just want a little bit of tweaking.
Now with eyes on Iran, one essay, published six months ago at American Thinker, stands out: Amil Imani's piece titled "Is Reza Pahlavi the Only Hope to Overthrow the Mullahs?"
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Very long story short, the USA had a good partner with the Shah. Until the idiot Carter hosed him over.
Until the idiot Carter(A liberal DEMOCRAT!) hosed him over.There fixed it!
Yes, that is not only true but factual. The peanut farmer from Georgia is the reason why we have trouble not only with Iran but the entire Muslim countries.
You know what, there are so few today that can grasp that.
The Shah had a couple of thousand prisoners and Carter deemed him someone he couldn’t deal with as a Christian (Carter that is).
So Carter the Christian helped facilitate the Islamic Caliphate that is Iran today.
We know the Middle East, and that it takes a strong man to rule there. Carter thought you should rule it as if it was Texas.
The little F’r gave away the Panama Canal which China almost immediately started managing. He could have negotiated and gotten us more time, probably without too much sweat. Then he helped facilitate the deal that has North Korea able to hit us with nukes.
Iran took hostages, and started arming Hezbollah in Lebanon, with supply trucks through Iran and Syria into Southern Lebanon.
That’s our supreme leader for ya. He never met a Commie dictator he didn’t like either.
Under the Shah, Iran was our number one ally in the region after Israel. Maybe number one period.
Iranians who agitated against him, I remember the Iranian students here protesting and rioting, had no idea they were sawing off the limb that sustained them. They destroyed their own country, with considerable help from Carter and Brzezinski.
These egg protests will do nothing, The Shah is deader than a Christmas goose.
He was in my accounting class at Texas Tech - he was learning to fly jets at the Air Force Base in Lubbock 1977 He showed up for the first class in coat and tie and for the final exam - both times with big apes on each side of him.
There are stories that Carter demanded the Shah cut his friends in on a major project in Iran, and when the Shah refused (shocked that a devout man like Carter would demand such a thing...) Carter tilted toward the Ayatollah.
Whether its true or not, Brzezinski was dispatched to Iran to counsel the Shah’s generals to not resist the Ayatollah.
Within three months of taking power, the Ayatollah had every one of those generals executed.
Reza is a compelling figure to Americans but I doubt he would be welcomed by Iranians. And I also question whether he’s up to it. He really has not accomplished anything of note during his exile. I don’t think that being a talking head on American tv is much of a resume. But I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.
"...Shah of Iran..."
>> Within three months of taking power, the Ayatollah had every one of those generals executed.
Islam is a war plan.
It was retarded the first time he was installed as a Monarch. Without the Shah electrocuting everyone’s nuts off, it’s likely the Ayatollah would have ever had a shot of getting into power.
The Iranians were actually ready for some freedom personally, and from British domination, when we snuffed that out and elevated the Shah.
Mosaddegh was a decent guy. His mistake was thinking Iran should be in charge of it’s oil rather than Brits. He was an author, administrator, lawyer, and prominent parliamentarian, his administration introduced a range of progressive social and political reforms such as social security and land reforms, including taxation of the rent on land. His government’s most notable policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum and BP).
Many Iranians regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran’s modern history. Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the CIA at the request of MI6, which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.
While the coup is commonly referred to in the West as Operation Ajax after its CIA cryptonym, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar. Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death and was buried in his own home so as to prevent a political furor.
No.
Perhaps, but it beats the alternative.
Of course the Shah is, but his son is NOT
Jimmy Carter! SPIT!
Only a blithering idiot, or a neocon ( but i repeat myself) would support installing a king.
They have lived under despotism since 1953 of either the Shah and Savak, or the Ayatollahs.
Maybe they need a chance to have some normal freedom. As a people the persians are much more intelligent and better suited to this than arabs.
Good Analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.