[wtc911]

Merry Christmas.....

I am very well read on the history of modern Iran. The shah was out of power and out of the country until Ike decided to put him back in. We orchestrated a coup against a legally elected government. It was communist in its leanings but the real sin it committed was to win in the Haague against GB in the case regarding who owns iran's oil.

A CIA AAR on this coup has been declassified (google operation Ajax or just Iran-coup-1953). It states in very clear language that the shah was an unwilling player who was "pathologically afraid". He was so reluctant that his sister was enlisted to shame him into action. When the first days of the coup went bad he fled to Italy and had to be dragged back. That is the unadulterated fact.

You suggest that the shah was soft compared to Saddam, Assad or Nasser, but what does that have to do with anything? These three pale in comparison to Hitler, Stalin, Amin or Pol Pot. I certainly don't imagine the SAVAK's victims and their families saying "well, let's put up with the torture and killings - it could always be worse."

The inescapable truths are that the shah was a coward and a puppet, and that his own people risked death (a gamble many of them lost) to throw him out. Carter might have made it easier after the fact but no content, respected, safe from their own government populace ever revolted because some foreign leader wanted them to do so.

The efforts here by a small cadre of iranians in safe exile to change history and elicit through lies freeper support for "our beloved shah", as one of them states frequently, pisses me off. Too many freepers know nothing about the true history and swallow this propaganda without a thought. The last thing I will ever endorse would be to risk even one American life to re-instate some cartoon dynasty.

The iranians threw out one despot. When they (not us - they) have had enough of the mullahs they'll do it again. I hope they do but I don't see any honest evidence that they are close to that day.

Did I say Merry Christmas?

[Reily]

I actually know FAR more about it then you think I do !
However I am not defending the Shah's actions to the extent you think I am. I actually agree he was a coward (He proved that by not cracking down when he had the chances!)and a puppet (BUT not quite as much a puppet as the word implies! He managed to manipulate Nixon. Puppets usually don't pull the strings of their puppeteers!) Another old ally that we ( and the west again !!) let fall during that time period was Haile Salassie. I think you can find plenty of Etrieans (and other tribal groups!)who could make similar statements about Salassie despotism, also Salassie's government completely fumbled the famine and wouldn't admit how bad it was. (Of course Salassie was in his mid-80s) But was Mehgistsu an improvement ? (of course he had Soviet Special Forces help !)
Again the Shah was the best choice of all bad choices both for the USA and for Iran. The current mad mullah leadership in Iran is at least equally oppressive as the Shah plus they are now worse off economically !
Also Khomeni didn't become the Shah's enemy until the Shah grabbed religiously owned/controlled land ! Then there was the Shah's promotion of the Iran's non-Islamic Persian past !
The Shah's grandfather(now I can't remember if it is father or grandfather!)who seized the throne was the one that changed the name of Persia to Iran. He wanted to emphasize the Aryan nature of Persia (Iran~ Land of the Aryans). This he did this to show the West that he was 'hip' to Fascism. Since Fascism & Socialism were the two new upcoming 'all-the-beautiful-people-are-doing-it' western philosophies that were going to sweep the world and put that tired old boring middle class oriented western-style representative government & capitalism to shame. (Read some representative political philosophy works of the 1920s[even 1900!] & 1930s. I find it amazing how popular Fascism was among the intellectual elite!)
Also the Shah's grandfather(or father) has been described to me as a 'hard-as-nails' commander of Persian Cossacks. He commanded a Persian Cossack regiment or squadron which I believe was the palace guard (I never had time to explore the term 'Persian Cossack', to me the term Cossack refers to Russian/Slavic horsemen of the steppes!)
Also the original Shah slept on a army cot all his life and was not the lover of luxury his descendants were !
Of course this old guy jumped on the Hitler bandwagon early 1941 when things looked bleak for the West. He revolted against British control, of course the Brits crushed the revolt exiled him to London and kept son & grandson in their hip pockets for later.(With UK approval the USSR invaded the north & the British the south. The Brits had to make a deal with the USSR devil because they simply didn't have the man-power!) Also I guarantee this 'Shah' was no more cruel then what he replaced. (He was more open to western ideas, always a step in the right direction...with the exception of the side-step toward fascism...but it was the intellectual rage of the 20's & 30's !) I also guarantee that the Brits 'direct rule' after the revolt was considerably milder then Soviet rule in the north. I also guarantee it wouldn't meet 2005 human rights standards. (Brits needed Persian oil for the Royal Navy hence the interest in Persia ! Thats where BP started ! Also as the Royal Navy waned so did British interest in Persia and the Middle East in general!)

Also " CIA AAR on this coup has been declassified (google operation Ajax or just Iran-coup-1953). It states in very clear language that the shah was an unwilling player who was "pathologically afraid". He was so reluctant that his sister was enlisted to shame him into action. When the first days of the coup went bad he fled to Italy and had to be dragged back. That is the unadulterated fact.
"
I don't deny any of this. All this proves was he was very poor material to be an absolute monarch. (BUT he was the only obviously pro-western material available. Also remember obvious at the time don't let 50 years of hindsight color your thinking !) Much like Nicholas II was too weak to be a traditional autocrat so was the Shah. In fact I find the story of the Shah & his family very similar to that of the last days of the Romanovs.
I view the Shah vs Iran in the same light as Franco vs Spain. Franco was definitely a SOB BUT he saved Spain ! Do you honestly think that a communist victory in Spain would have shed less blood then a Phalange victory. (By the way Franco was never a member of the Phalange(Fascist)party he was an old time monarchist through-and-through! Also Hitler would have invaded Spain if there had been a communist victory.) Franco played Hitler and the Allies and later the USSR for all they were worth and rebuilt Spain. It's now a thriving constitutional monarchy which Franco nurtured(I call 'politically adopting' Juan Carlos de Bourbon and making him the 'heir' nurturing!) and allowed to take power, in spite of all the SNL jokes! If only the Shah had Franco's talent & guts, he didn't and here we are with what we got! I guarantee you can find people today who compare Franco to Hitler and have nothing good to say about him! Also consider Pinochet !

I always remember what one old Latvian emigre told me about Nazi vs Soviet rule and which was worse. With Nazi rule all you had to to was obey & work yes it was horrible and oppressive BUT with Soviet rule you had to believe it was good for you !