Posted on 10/13/2014 9:15:19 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “Iran is a natural ally” of the U.S.
“As long as Iran is ruled by the ayatollah and bases itself on its sectarian philosophy, we have to be careful. But basically, as a country, Iran is a natural ally of the United States. It’s the ideological, religious component that makes it an antagonist,” said Kissinger, who served as Secretary of State for the Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford administrations. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
No Irani flew planes into buildings -- that was Saudis -- sunni jihadis
For too long we've been theSaudi King's 'blue eyed slave soldiers"
Iran would only be a threat to the SAudis -- that's why the Wahabbi Saudis are running scared and getting the US to curb Iran
The single greatest threat to world stability today is Pakistan, A Sunni country
That is not the case in SAudi Arabia (which has no non-Moslems, it is illegal), nor in Pakistan.
“Mohammad Mosaddegh” — remember that elected PM who was knocked out by the CIA and SIS?
Oh, this again. Has nothing to do with exactly who the pan-Islamist is who did the deed but more to do with where they got the funds.
Saint? Those aren’t usually appointed to be leaders of a country; very rare when that ever happened.
The Shah was fighting to keep the terrorists from taking over his country and using the only means that would work, but the liberal west kept telling him to stop. That’s the truth.
There’s also a difference between a king and a dictator. The last Shah was no dictator, but the same cannot be said for people in his parliament (such as the Islamic socialist Mohammed Mossadegh, the darling of the left who was not elected no matter how they lie that he was).
He was not elected. He was an Islamic socialist who nationalized industries (especially oil) as an attack on Western companies who were helping the Persian economy.
I’m not saying that Mossadegh was some type of saint either. I’m not like the left, going to prop up the guy who was on my side and overlook his transgressions. Mossadegh was a communist who was going to ensure that was the last election held. He was going to ally himself with the USSR. They were both bastards, it’s just that the Shah was our bastard and he won out. It didn’t hurt that he was “royalty” and had a claim to the mantle.
I’m not ripping on the USA by saying this. I’m just stating truth. We had no viable choices to support back then and we couldn’t let Iran go commie. People that don’t understand that either never lived through the cold war or were cheering for the other side. They were strange times as far as cold war relationships.
So what did the Shah do wrong?
All I hear about SAVAK is what the leftists say about it. And if they were the apparatus that the Shah had to set up after Mossadegh’s treasonous behavior, then it behooves everyone to cut through the leftists’ propaganda about it, especially that of people like Ervand Abrahamian and that ilk.
The head of SAVAK from 1961 to 1966, Hassan Pavrakan, was too soft on Khomeini, so that reveals one bad aspect. He got executed for his benevolence by Khomeini’s Islamic Republic.
So again: What did the Shah do wrong?
Why is it necessary to be a “saint” to lead a country and maintain the peace?
Mossadegh did nothing good, bottom line. Why are you defending him? He destabilized Iran and stole from western oil companies that were helping his country stay afloat. He was a friend of the Soviets.
No, the point is that the leftists were allowed to help the Islamists stir up the “people” through their usual tactics of class warfare, to induce the removal of the rightful shah and establish an Islamic tyranny in its place. Whatever the last Shah did (including the establishment of SAVAK) was a reaction to that insurrection to keep the peace and keep a monster at bay. But you seem to want to fight the propaganda war of the Islamists and leftists for them.
You have no proof of your allegations against the Shah, or SAVAK for that matter. They all come from liberal sources who also attempt to paint the CIA as equally culpable.
You’re also painting all Iranians as radical Twelvers just because of their perceived animus against the Shah among other things. Was that your intent?
That is not the case in SAudi Arabia (which has no non-Moslems, it is illegal), nor in Pakistan.
As you know my mother is Iranian-Zoroastrian by birth and I still have (Zoroastrian) relatives in Iran, therefore, also have inside knowledge.
Conversion to another religion for a muslim by birth, if found out by the regime, is not tolerated at all. The current constitution of Iran clearly favors a very specific sect of Islam; that being the Jafari Shia 12ers sect. Even Sunni-Iranians are discriminated against. In that sense, the mullahs regime is not any better than SA or Pakistan.
Furthermore, although all 'officially recognized' religious minorities (Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians) have token representation in IRI's parliament, and in fact it is guaranteed in the current constitution, politically they've extremely limited influence.
They are free to worship indoors in their places of worship. But not permitted to proselytize. There is some discrimination in public housing, employment and education too. Preference is given to Shia musims. However, in recent years, Zoroastrians, for example, are quite free to hold their various religious festivals outdoors. Surprisingly or not, these festivals attract many muslim born Iranians, and the authorities mostly let it be.
It's worthwhile to mention that the Islamic regime in Iran, equally, has issues with traditional non-Islamic Iranian national festivals such as No-Rooz (Iranian New Year), which is really based on Zoroastrian traditions. It views it as un-Islamic, and several times over the past 35 years has tried to ban it, but Iranians have seriously resisted that attempt. So, the regime has tried to 'Islamize' the celebrations.
On a related note, Iran still has many regular Parsees (Zoroastrian community in India) visiting the country as part of their 'pilgrimage' to Chak Chak in Yazd province and also Kerman province, or just generally as tourists. They're very free to do so, and in fact that key Zoroastrian shrine is protected by the regime.
There is more say, but hope the above gives you some idea. :)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree, and suggest most probably the mentioned difference was one reason why the Shah had to go as far as Carter et al were concerned. Human rights and democracy were excuses.
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.