We have to blame Mr. Carter for that. His agents negotiated with islamist groups under Ayatosheytan Khomeini to take over after Iranian king was forced to leave. Iranian king contributed immensely to Republican party against Carter in presidential campaign. He was firm to keep the price of oil high enough to exacerbate late 70s recession as well. Mr. Carter had a hand in deposing the late Iranian king. Mr. Carter's agents were not smart enough to not trust a fanatic Islamic Jihadist. At least they should have negotiated with Democrats and nationalists to take over after the exit of Shah.
The source of the problem was the coup against Mossadegh and installing the Shah, there was no way to prevent Khomeini from implementing the Islamic Republic after the revolution. Have the UK and US left Mossadegh alone, this would be a different Iran and a whole different dynamic in the region.
Not Supporting UK in Iranian oil nationalization offer could be a wise move. UK was robbing of Iran from oil money after WWII to pay for reconstruction and British Navy. Mossadegh was a weird Iranian nationalist. He was from a Qajar family, a dynasty which ended by Pahlavis (by father of last Iranian King). There was vengeance against Pahlavis in back of his mind. He was highly educated and fiercly nationalist, but his behavior was bizare like accept meeting or talking to officials in his bed. He was so desperate after he nationalized Iranian oil, because Iranian economy was crippled under British blockade. This was the time that he needed help of a strong nation to keep the democracy alive in Iran. Otherwise communists were gaining grounds in Iranian political theater. Mossadegh didn't like Comminists but they showed support and that raised a red flag for American politicians. UK tried to magnify the power and influence of Iranian communists and the rest is history. Islamists and religious supporters of Mossadegh were bought by English money and he was left alone with a sinking economy. It just needed a spark to create a mess and unfortunately CIA helped it with Operation Ajax.
Actually the last shah had been reigning since 1941 when the British and the Soviets forced his father to abdicate. After the coup the difference is that he got to rule with totally compliant Prime Ministers.
Iran had a constitutional monarchy at that time. Shah was just a figurehead like the Queen in Britain, before he started interfering in the nation’s affairs with the encouragement of the British, which ultimately led to the 1953 coup, the suspension of democracy, and Shah’s actual reign through puppet parliaments/prime minsters until he was overthrown by a revolution in 1979.
I'm guessing Reza Shah wasn't a figurehead. I'm assuming Mohammed Reza being young when given the throne he was easier to keep as a figurehead.
The US has forsworn their use outside of the Korean Peninsula. And while we are not part of the Ottawa Treaty, we ended the use of "persistent" or long-life landmines in 2011, everywhere (including the Korean Peninsula). We're also a top funder of landmine removal initiatives. (Sorry to be late on last week's conversation - I know we're a notable outlier on the global trend to end use of anti-personnel landmines.) (Speaking of which, the landmine treaty is specifically focused on anti-personnel mines, not anti-vehicle ones.)
Reza Shah had also suspended the parliament and constitutional monarchy. He too had come to power through the British-backed 1921 Persian coup. Otherwise, Iran was one of the first countries in Asia to have an elected parliament and democracy after the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911 conducted by a coalition of nationalists and socialists led by Sattar Khan, Bagher Khan, Yeprem Khan, Heydar Khan , and Howard Baskerville who was an American.
You are guessing right. Reza Shah was a military officer trained by Russian Cossacks. He was commander of the first and only Iranian Cossack brigade. He was ruthless and nationalist. His son was moved to Switzerland since his childhood to be educated in European schools. Mohamad Reza Shah was weak, naive and very young when he gained the power in 1941. Reza Shah wanted to modernize Iran and bring European technology and beaucracy to the country. He asked for a Republic after he deposed Qajar dynasty, but religious leaders who feared women may gain rights and democracy might push them back to mosques opposed the idea. Next, Reza shah chose monarchy and started modernizing Iran with help of Swedish, Belgian, American and German advisers. He was against British and Russian influence in the country. He smashed separatists movement supported by Soviets (Jangali movement of Gilan and Kurdish rebels of north west) and British (Sheikh Khazal of Oil rich south west Iran). He built the railroad that allied forces used to transfer American weapon and equipment to Soviets after 1941 occupation of Iran. Reza Shah didn't have time to instill his iron hand rule and determination to his son but a form of nationalism gained support in young king after early 1960s. Mohamad Reza Shah was very soft on Islamist and fanatic religious groups and that contributed to his down fall. He was a benevalent but weak king. Side note: Iranian constitutionalists gained some democratic rights in late era of Qajar dynasty but many were killed ruthlessly by Qajar king Mohamad Shah who was a Russian puppet. He bombarded Iranian Parliament by Russian forces under Colonel Liakhov and jailed or killed many constitutionalists in Iran. He was forced to leave Iran after Iranian constitutionalist army of different volunteering groups took over Tehran. He escaped to Russia and came back again to take the throne. He was defeated for good and left us for ever. Iranian constitutionalists later were weaken by rivalry, weak economy, WWI and Russian and British influence in Iran. The movement was an early example of democratic movement in Asia and middle east. The society was not yet ready for it.
A lot of revisionist nonsense about Reza Shah out there. Reza Shah was an illiterate thug who was installed by the British via a coup and eventually removed by them when he got more independent and too close to the Germans. During his rule, he dissolved the elected parliament, and suppressed not only the young democracy in Iran, but also basic freedoms like what to wear etc. He forced men to wear Pahlavi Hats and he forced women to remove their Hejab. By doing so, he antagonized large portions of the population who were religious and apolitical and this resulted in religious folks getting involved in politics and a whole generation of right-wing religious nut-jobs gaining ground in Iran and ultimately taking power in 1979. Every problem in Iran, even today, is somehow or somewhat the consequences of stupid policies of Reza Shah and his son. For example, Khomeini was a teenage theology student who wasn’t involved in politics as was the long tradition of Shia clerics not to get involved in politics, before Reza Shah, while visiting a holy shrine, personally slapped and kicked Khomeini because he had asked that Reza Shah’s wife wear a scarf when entering the holy shrine as was the tradition for all holy places. As a result of this public humiliation, Khomeini developed a grudge against Pahlavi family and became involved in politics and overthrew them 50 years later. Reza Shah’s extremes, and his son’s extremes just helped creat a different type of extreme in opposition. Now was Reza Shah as bad as Shah? No. Unlike his son, he did a lot of good things for Iran. He modernized Iran and reestablished central government sovereignty over all of Iran. And to his credit, he tried to become independent and distanced himself from the British over the years. Overall, despite his thuggery, he was probably the most competent Iranian statesman since Abbas Mirza. That, however, does not excuse his anti-democratic moves, the price of which many Iranians are still paying to this day.
Reza Shah blindly copied Ataturk on his economic and social reforms and they were like best buddies. He was so blinded by his love for Ataturk, that he essentially gifted the highly-prized eastern flank of Mount Ararat to Ataturk in exchange for a few Kurdish villages of no strategic value.
My grandparents and their parents lived during Reza Shah era. They both feared and respected the man. He had a brutal justice in his mindset something similar to justice of Vlad the impaler. He was not illiterate. He could read and write but he was not very educated since his dad died early, had to work and he joined military at a very young age. There are a lot of negativity and bs stories invented by Islamic regime of Iran about Reza Shah. Reza Shah supressed religious nut jobs and that pissed them off. Clergy class had lands and power over people which was reduced by Reza Shah who wanted decipline, modernization and absolute power. He did a great job about Hijab but took it to another level of forcing even the religious section of society. He forced men to give up the old clothing and adapt European clothing. He built roads, railroads, hospitals, schools, universities, factories, police stations, and rebuilt Iranian customs, post, fishery, and military. He brought European archeologist groups to dig Iranian ancient sites and revive a sense of Iranian nationalism prior to Islam. Iranian roads were unsafe and full of highwaymen prior to Reza Shah. He crushed rebels and bands of highwaymen with iron fist and made trading and traveling safe again. I heard stories of hanging thieves and highwaymen on cross roads outside cities to scare the bandits.
I like to post here, in the context of what is being discussed, something I had written a couple decades ago: ...Mohammad Reza Shah continued his father's emphasis on the national, as opposed to the religious, heritage of Iran -- and emphasis which would cause the threads which had woven together the divergent elements within the Iranian identity, to become noticeably strained. Two of these elements -- the Shia religion on the one hand, and the country's national heritage, on the other -- would be placed in mutually exclusive quarters and Iranians would be asked to choose between them. In the wake of the Revolution in 1979, Iranians would rally behind their religious leaders, although not because they had chosen one strand in their identity over the other. Deservedly or not, the Shah had come to be regarded by many Iranians, less a representative of their national heritage than of the interests of foreign powers. Many Iranians, moreover, had become increasingly uncomfortable with the Shah's mimicking of Western culture, a culture that was not only alien to them, but one that had become the most forceful threat to their national identity. Paradoxically, therefore, many Iranians began to identity the clerical establishment as the institution that best represented both the country's religious, as well as national, heritage. For them, the clerical establishment, alone among all of the country's major institutions, had withstood the intoxicating aroma of Western culture and maintained a tradition that was free from its influences.
That's a made up story. It was not Khomeini who was assaulted by Reza Shah officers. It was another clergy. Iranian religious leaders were involved in Iranian politics as far as time of Fatali Shah of Qajar dynasty. They were involved in Tobacco strikes against British monopoly and they were among constitutionalists. Moddares was one of the many Islamist leaders who involved in Iranian politics prior to Reza Shah. Religious folks were always involved in politics on those days. Remember all laws passed by constitutionalists parliament had to be agreed by 5 Ayatullahs to not be against Islamic teachings.
Clergy class of Iranians didn't represent anything related to Iranian nationalism. They only represented an old traditional form of religion in opposition of Iranian identity. They praised Arabic culture over Iranian culture and wanted to destroy all Iranian archeological sites. Khalkhali, the right hand man of Khomeini wanted to buldoze Persepolis and other Iranian ancient sites and rename Persian Gulf as Islamic Gulf. Khomeini and Khamenei both tried to ban Persian New year Eve or Nowruz celebration. IRGC tried for years to intrupt our old fire jumping tradition of Charshanbe Suri to erase anything related to our culture and history prior to Islam.
I am not interested in political propaganda and polemics. Nowrus is the main holiday in Iran, on whose occasion Iran's Supreme Leader delivers his customary Norooz message. And Iran's pre Islamic heritage and historical sites are preserved and cherished in Iran if not more than previously, than not any less. That doesn't mean the regime won't react to those who want to use anything, be it an "Islamic ceremony" or a "pre Islamic one" as a vehicle for anti-regime activities But suffice it to say, one of the many labels repeatedly given to General Soleimani over loudspeakers during the mourning ceremonies for him, was the "Rostam of Iran". Anyone who watched those ceremonies with Sardar Aghili's song about Iran and repeated references to Shahanameh icons on state television could tell you that. But Iranian nationalism (as opposed to pseudo westernized nationalism of the Pahlavi dynasty) isn't just about pre Islamic Iran, but the total span of Iranian history, including both pre Islamic and post Islamic Iranian history. Furthermore, Shia Islam, as evolved in Iran, itself became a vehicle to act as a synthesis to represent both aspects of Iranian identity (national and religious). Besides, many of the things that westernized Iranians ascribe to "Arab culture" were in fact from Persian culture even before Islam! 'Arab' culture wasn't much of a culture on its own; it was mainly the culture of the Bedouins of the Arabian peninsula, with the settled population itself influenced by the surrounding cultures represented by the two dominant empires of the time, namely the Sassanian empire of Iran and the Byzantine empire. The dominant culture of all the major Islamic powers after the Umayyad caliphate, and in particular after the Persian renaissance and rise of Persianate societies across the region, was what could be called "Iranian Islamic culture". This was true of not just the culture of IRAN, but even its rivals in the Ottoman empire and those of the Mughal empire in India. This dominant, Persianate culture, began to fade and give away to 'westernization' from the 19th century onward all across the region. Including among the elite in Iran, where even before the Pahlavi dynasty, westernization had began to take shape and form. Of course, westernization and its attraction among the elite and more aware parts of Iranian and larger middle eastern societies, itself, reflected the fact that western civilization had genuinely eclipsed and had become the 'superior' culture compared to the the Irano-Islamic civilization that dominated the culture of the regions. However, despite that fact, it is also a fact that westernized Iranians were still a relatively small minority within the larger population of Iran. The divisions between this class of Iranians, between those who followed leftist or Marxist ideologies, those who were followers of Dr. Mossadegh's national front, or monarchists who had been reared in the "Pahlavi nationalism" (or pseudo nationalism) espoused by the Shah and his father, were in reality divisions within a minority of the population. A minority whose ranks, ironically, has increased substantially under the Islamic Republic, but a relatively small minority until rather recently. In the past especially, for the overwhelming majority in Iran, their 'sources of emulation' were and remained Iran's shia clerics. Which is why every movement of any mass following or significance in Iran in the 19th and 20th century was, in fact, led by one or another faction of Iran's clerics. Even Mossadegh's oil nationalization movement relied on the support of clerics such as Ayatollah Kashani and, if Mossadegh was easily disposed in the coup in the wake of Operation Ajax, it was because he had already lost the support of the clerical establishment in the meantime.
Back to the pregame thread https://www.yahoo.com/news/iranian-general-warns-retaliation-us-134656091.html Whole bunch of saber-rattling.
Iranian clergy wanted to destroy Iranian ancient sites and there are many articles on news papers stating they wanted to eradicate all remains of Iranian kingdoms from ancient times to recent years. Stupid radical religious folks and fanatic clergies went to Persepolis site with shovels and buldozers to destroy 2500 year old Persian capital and ceremonial palace and were stopped by huge numbers of Iranian nationalists and farmers living around Persepolis site. Iranian regime was scared of an uprising so they ordered stupid radicals to back down. Khalkhali personally destroyed Reza Shah Mausoleum and was looking for his body to burn it with fire. This is Khalkhali destroying a building. Here, he is attacking Ferdowsi, Poet of Iranian national epic Shahnameh (Book of King). He wanted to destroy Mausoleum of Ferdowsi because he praised old Iranian Kings and national heros in his book 1000 years ago. Here Khalkhali is asking to change the name of Persian Gulf to Islamic Gulf.
Khalkhali was top authority of revolutionary courts that hanged Iranian generals, politicians, businessmen, rich minorities folks and officers in just few days. Iranian ancient sites have mostly been neglected by Islamic regime of Iran and you can see clear intentional damages on many historical sites. Only major historical sites are kept with minimum maintenance to bring tourists and have a source of income for regime. People are prevented by force to go celebrate Cyrus the Great day or Nowruz beside Cyrus's grave in Pasargadae. Security forces close all roads to the site to public a day prior till a day after the events. Iranian supreme leaders Khomeini and Khamenei both on their speeches encouraged Iranian public to abondon Iranian new year eve and other ancient cultural and national celebrations and adopt Islamic celebration days. They tried to force it but saw the resistance and made a quasi event as birth of Imam Ali to be celebrated in the same day and justify the celebration. They failed to make Iranian public give up on their cultural and national heritage. Soleimani was a terrorist and not national hero. Only Iranian regime TV and news papers related to IRGC named this terrorist as national hero, Rostam of Iran or Darious of Iranian regime. They even jailed and beaten an 18 year old teeneger for destroying a picture of Soleimani and closed down two newspapers because they stated Soleimani was killed and didn't say he was martyred. The editors of mentioned news paper were jailed and interigated till they publicly apologized. There is a load of bs that I don't want to waste my time answering. I lost all of my respect for IM. Living in Iran and not being able to criticize the regime is understandable but repeating their bs and and lies and defending them is beyond me.
These are the level of intentional destruction and neglegence by Iranian Islamic regime toward Iranian archeological and historical sites. Here is 2500 year old Persepolis, capital of ancient Persia. Here are other ancient sites. A Sassanid woman bas relief was destroyed by hammer. Another ancient inscription was cut from rock in semirom.
The emigre, anti-regime, propaganda never ceases to amaze me. Never mind that it hasn't been able to rally any significant part of Iran's population behind any of the emigre figures, despite the multitude of satellite channels and such. But because it hasn't even managed to unite the Iranian emigre community behind any of its figures either, but it continues with the same tactics nonetheless! This, despite the fact, that I actually view the reign of the Pahlavis (both father and son) in much more positive light, and far less critically than many others, if someone is to assume that the victory of Westernization and living under the general, US/western, order of things is inevitable and requires no resistance. On the latter, I see Iran's resistance to such hegemony a work in progress. Akin to the early phases of the Iranian renaissance after a century or more of Arab rule. While the Arabs themselves came from a limited cultural background, and one that didn't have much to its credit, the truth is that the "Islamic civilization' ushered during the golden age of Islam represented the height of the culture and civilization in the "East" compared to the "West" at any point since the split between "East and West" and, subsequently, the politicization of that split during the Greco-Persian wars, Alexander's conquest of Iran, and then roughly 7 centuries of warfare between Iran and Rome. At the time of the Persian renaissance, the Islamic civilization (which itself owed its greatest minds, scholars and philosophers to those of Persian decent) was the dominant and superior culture and civilization of its time. Everywhere else, people under this civilization, had not only become "Muslim" but "Arab" too. It was only in Iran that this didn't happen, with the Iranian renaissance, the rise of new Persian, Persian literature, poetry as well as the mythology and historiography of ancient Iran as represented by Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, allowing Iranian identity and its culture (evolving under various influences as will always be properly the case) to manifest itself and its claim to be the true 'mantle holder' for the culture of the East more generally. And at that time, there were those who considered anyone who spoke to that culture (then, to work against domination foreign Islamic rulers, today by the more ancient rivals of Iran, in the West) with the equivalent of the titles used today. Many of them, in fact, were executed as heretics. One of them, who has a district in Tehran (and a metro station and a lot more) named after him, was Sohrovardi. Another figure which the 'regime' names many things after is Mulla Sadra (including a major highway in Tehran), the Safavid era sage of Shia philosophy and the admirer of Sohravardi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab_al-Din_Yahya_ibn_Habash_Suhrawardi
My last 'rant' on this subject, and then I prefer to focus on what I like in front of "foreign audiences", namely to argue with foreign agendas against Iran. And leave Iran's issues and Iran's 'dirty laundry" to be discussed among Iranians and between them separately elsewhere. ------------------------------------------------------ To me, the whole discussion about 'nationalism' under the Shah compared to nationalism in Iran today is as ludicrous as the late Shah celebrating 2,500 years of Persian empire in front of various foreign, western guest, and even on this occasion, ordering food from Maxim of Paris to feed his guests! Okay, we weren't able to build our own missiles, tanks, and warplanes then, but come on? I am sure we could have done better than simply copy-cat the cuisine, architecture, fashion, and everything else from the West, and yet neglect the very things which underpinned the fact that Western civilization had indeed surpassed that of Irano-Islamic civilization, trying to totally scrap centuries of Persian scholarship, philosophy and the like (almost all of it from Iran's Islamic history) in a war against "Islam" when what was actually required was to break down the few areas of remaining "dogma" that had helped retard its progress. Otherwise, the truth is that Iranian philosophy, and the consequent Shia theological doctrines, were developed in many ways to keep the rationalist traditions founded by Ibn Sina and Farabi alive, despite the turn took elsewhere in Muslim world under various views of what another Persian philosopher, Ghazali, had written showing the limits of reason in achieving truth. Notwithstanding Ghazali (and to blame him for the anti-rationalist turn in Islamic philosophy is unfair to him in any case), the dominant tradition in Iran continued as a form of reaction to those who liked to emphasize received knowledge or scripture instead of rationality and other modes of reaching "truth". And when one of main ingredients of western ascendancy was the development of political ideologies that emancipated and involved more and more of its populace, as opposed to a small group of people, in charting not only their individual paths but those for their communities and nations. Iran's revolution emancipated its people, even if that emancipation in many cases, took Iran in different directions than the ones many of its leaders may have envisioned. Turning the people of Iran into sheep who couldn't think unless someone somewhere else thought of something first, wasn't about "progress". It was about the Shah trying to make Iran 'look modern' in front of the only people whose opinions he valued, namely those related to his old class mates in Europe and the rulers of the West more generally. p.s. I want to be clear: I don't even blame the Shah! He was the product of his times. And, despite all the negative propaganda against him, the Shah was actually neither a 'blood thirsty tyrant' nor even a 'foreign puppet'. In his own way, he was trying to be a patriot. After all, whatever made Iran "look good" made him look good too.
I don't consider the sources behind these reports reliable enough, but if Michael D'andrea was indeed one of the people killed in the plane crash in Afghanistan, it would indeed be significant. The idea that "Iran" is claiming this is fictitious, but there are reports making this claim in Iranian media (see articles below). https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/iran-claims-cia-boss-behind-21376999 Iran claims CIA boss 'behind Soleimani death' was killed in downing of jet by Taliban https://en.mehrnews.com/news/155056/CIA-s-Michael-D-Andrea-reportedly-killed-in-US-plane-downing CIA’s Michael D’ Andrea reportedly killed in US plane downing in Afghanistan https://ifpnews.com/murderer-of-soleimani-killed-in-us-plane-downing-in-afghanistan-sources Murderer of Soleimani Killed in US Plane Downing in Afghanistan: Sources