Posted on 10/23/2014 2:53:11 PM PDT by freedom44
More in keeping with his father's views, Reza is generally sympathetic towards the United States - with whom relations were cordial before the fall of the Shah - and while he loves his country and intends for it to be a puppet state to no one, he does personally agree with many American political values. This is only natural given his democratic views, as the population of his country boasts a majority of Persian youth under the age of 30, with progressive views more in line with modern Western ideals than those espoused by the older, Arabic populations of the other Muslim theocracies in the Middle East. Reza's desire for a democratically accountable government, therefore, if implemented, would almost certainly result in an administration wishing to renew friendly ties with the US.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
The Shah was a murderous tyrant and placing him in power after the CIA-led overthrow of the democratically-elected Mosaddegh was one of the greatest foreign policy travesties the United States has ever been a part of.
“He’s probably more pro-US than most US liberals.”
That’s not saying much given there is no such thing as a
pro-US liberal. This Reza guy is only pro-US out of convenience. I think he must have gotten some inside
knowledge that the US was going to overthrow the leadership
of Iran and he wants to get his foot in the door on getting
put in as the new boss. He’s just an opportunist.
But of course replacing the Shah with the the Ayatollahs doesn’t rank on that level. Right?
Was the leader of Iran prior to the Shah a good guy, or was he problematic? Well actually he nationalized the British Oil holdings in Iran. I’ll bet that was popular with Iran’s allies.
As for the Shah being a murderous thug, just how murderous a thug was he? The Ayatollahs weren’t murderous thugs? LOL They allowed our diplomats to be abducted and held in captivity for 444 days.
You know, I guess I just don’t understand the Middle-East. You have to be a strong man to say around, but when you are people come along and trash you for being one.
You remember Anwar Sadat don’t you. That’s what happens if you don’t keep your enemies off balance over there.
Almost as much of a travesty as the overthrow of the democratically-elected Morsi by that murderous tyrant el-Sisi, hmm?
“Iran/Persia was a Secular Monarchy for 3,000 years. Iran has only been an Islamic Republic since 1979. What are you talking about?”
Please, I have seen enough bs today to have more. Iran has been Islamic since the 8th century. And CIA propped oil “monarchs”, just like the house of Sauds.
The last vestige of Persia died when the last remaining Persians were killed off or fled, in the 11th century.
Mossadegh and the kgb that stuffed the ballot box for mossadegh do exist, though, they’re called the Republican guard now
That’s a lie
The shah and his police and army were attacked regularly by the kgb and plo types until 1978
khomenies grandson admitted they can only prove 3500 deaths over 30 years by the shah against the leftist soviet terrorists and Muslim terrorists, yet khomenie killed 100,000 his first year alone.
You need to stop listening to cnn
I’m afraid the ignorance about Iran and the bigotry toward all muslims have reached a high point here at FR. The days of “Regime Change Iran” are gone.
Sad.
http://www.rescueattempt.com/id24.html
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3347/pub_detail.asp
http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/1111
http://alanpetersworld.blogspot.com/2008/03/jimmah-idiot-carter-architect-of-our.html
http://www.aryamehr.org/eng/carter/ill/cart.htm
You are correct RB. The shah and SAVAK can’t even be compared to the evil regime there today.
>>Carter is the root of everything that went wrong with Iran/Iraq and a lot of the terrorist activity that has taken place over the last 15-20 years.
Worth saying again. Carter undercutting the Shah and allowing the mullahs to gain control of Iran is what really got modern Islamic expansionism and international terrorism rolling.
Shias are Muslims, not Infidels.
What the Shah's son represents and proposes are Infidel Ideas.
A practicing Muslim would reject those Infidel ideas, just like Infidels would reject Muslim Sharia Law.
The very fact that the Shah's sons ideas might get some traction with so-caled Muslims in Iran shows me there ae a lot of Muslim heretics in Iran, including the Shah's son. -tom
How could have been an Islamic state though? It was ruled and controlled by a secular Monarch. I’m not understanding what you mean. Perhaps you mean since 1979 but even before 1979 there were secular Monarchs in Persia/Iran. I think your understanding is based on very modern geopolitics and that changes at a rapid pace.
The Shah would never be a good ‘western leader’, but he was a great middle eastern one :)
you must be some ronulan to spout this drivel
the CIA was never involved in Iran until the Brits asked us to help keep heir oil interests once Mossedegh started to cozy up to the soviets and sarted answering his front door in his pajamas, too
both mossadegh and Palhavi stuffed the ballot boxes, there was never a ‘fair’ election by western standards...maybe by democrat standards, but I think you understand...
but you are a stoopid Adam kokesh loving Ronulan if you think the CIA controlled Iran, Nixon was going to impose sanctions on Iran until the 1973 oil embargo by the arabs when Pahlavi was the only leader willing to sell us oil, and we armed him to the teeth to say thanks, too
that commie loving Carter sold him out, held back intel that would have cleared the iranian army of the black friday murders and the american media refused to report on the Leftist Tudeh party groups that actually led the revolution that was taken over by the muslims in Iran.
you are apparently just a Adam Kokesh parrot, worse yet, alex jones lover...
Perhaps, but I can speak from my own experience. Of course we see young jihadi’s in ISIS, etc. But, I’ve also witnessed kids in both Iraq and Afghanistan that want no part of Islam. I trained Iraqi National Police. They were a mix of old and young. The old guys gave all of the stink eye from day one. All the young guys spoke at least broken english. And they all wanted to go to Chicago, NYC and LA. They had Facebook accounts.
There was an article in Stars & Stripes a while back. The writer interviewed several Imam’s in Baghdad. They complained that no one attended their mosques anymore. The younger folks, with access to computers and the internet, are slowly-very slowly-in some cases that there’s a whole new world out there. When the Iraq invasion started, Saddam Hussein had his most loyal troops, Fedayeen Saddam. The Iraqi people thought they had tails and that they weren’t humans.
On the other hand, Arabs, Muslims, etc are some of the most corrupt and thieving bastards on the planet. After all, before they were assisted in getting oil out of the ground, all they did was roam the deserts robbing each other.
meanwhile, back in Iran:
> A series of acid attacks on women in the historic Iranian city of Isfahan has raised fears and prompted rumors that the victims were targeted for not being properly veiled.
Thanks freedom44.
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.