noemon wrote:Blackjack21 yet again engaging in outright falsehoods and regime-change apologetics with unashamed obfuscation & creative trivia.
First, I'm making no apologies for the Shah whatsoever. I have plainly stated many times that I am not an egalitarian. Nor am I obfuscating. If anything, I'm providing a great deal of historical detail precisely to neutralize the effect of Soviet propaganda that lingers on as a meme to this very day. There are college professors who believe that claptrap. Students eat up that moralizing rhetoric uncritically.
Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi had power over ministers under the Persian Constitution of 1906. He was perfectly within his power to dismiss Mossadeq from the post of prime minister, which is no different from the Queen of England's powers. It is well known that the Qajars were fighting to retain the old order, and were hostile to Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar creating and signing the Persian Constitution of 1906. As an historical side note, Mozaffar ad-Din, as crown prince, was sent to the North to govern the Azerbaijan province. Mohammed Mossadeq, the nephew of Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar's wife, was elected to the first Majlis in 1906 at the age of 24, and later took the same career path as Mozaffar ad-Din did as crown prince by becoming governor of the Azerbaijan province. Mossadeq was an aristocrat, not some sort of plebian. His father was the finance minister under the Qajar Dynasty. Mossadeq married the grandaughter of Nasser al-Din Shah. So this "Mossadeq was a man of the people" narrative is nothing but Soviet propaganda. Mozaffar ad-Din died 40 days after granting the constitution and is buried in Karbala, Iraq.
Mohammed Ali Shah succeeded Mozaffar ad-Din Shah, and abolished the constitution in 1908. Pro-constitutional factions protested and forced his abdication in favor of his son (who was only 11 years old), and re-established the constitution. During WWI, he was obviously too young to rule or stop the occupation of Tehran by Russian forces. More embarrassingly for Iran, Bakhtaran troops from the South rather than Iranian regular army troops expelled the Russians. Things got pretty wobbly in Iran in the 1920s with the Gilan province trying to break away and become a Soviet Socialist Republic. They were preparing to march on Tehran backed by the Red Army. Ahmad was still very young and a weak ruler. With the threat of Soviet expansion, the British backed Reza Khan--later made Reza Shah by the constitutional assembly in 1926. Anyway, it was Reza Khan coming to power and ultimately deposing Ahmad that could be characterized as a coup, because the head of state did in fact change and the Pahlavi Dynasty succeeded the Qajar Dynasty. For what it's worth, the heir apparent of the Qajar dynasty is still alive today, and lives in Dallas, Texas.
During WWII, the British and Soviets were allied. Reza Pahlavi Shah--becoming Shah by opposing Soviet expansion into Iran--was deposed by joint British and Soviet action, because his neutral stance in WWII was seen as pro-Nazi--but more importantly, lend-lease supplies from British India needed to be shipped via port and rail through Iran to the Soviet Union and they needed to transit Iran to accomplish that end. So Reza Shah was bounced in favor of his son Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. After the end of WWII in 1946, the Soviets refused to remove their military forces from the North of Iran; namely Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. The US finally forced the issue and it was Truman's first success at containment. See
Iran crisis of 1946. Naturally, since @late pressed George Kennan as the architect of containment, I can reasonably assume that @late knew perfectly well what was going on in Iran, since the US lodged its protest and UNSC Resolution 2 was passed in January of 1946, and Kennan wrote his Long Telegram a month later in February 1946 which became the basis for the doctrine of containment in 1947 as the US was working to push the Soviets out of Iran.
So on the one hand @late will champion George Kennan when it suits him. Then, he will act as if he is utterly ignorant of the Doctrine of Containment and its first major success. You should know that perfectly well too @noemon , since the Truman Doctrine was formalized during the Greek Civil War following WWII. The US had to balance both Turkey and Greece even though neither were particularly democratic, and they hated each other. However, US policy stabilized both Greece and Turkey (at a cost of $400M US in 1950s dollars) to the point that they both became NATO members in 1952--the same year Mohammed Reza Shah Palavi first dismissed and later re-instated Mossadeq as Prime Minister.
However, Mossadeq then tried to depose the Shah with an unlawful referendum:
1953 Iranian parliamentary dissolution referendum. Mossadeq illegally dissolved parliament on August 16, 1953. He officially "resigned" August 19, 1953.
Name one thing I have said that is an "outright falsehood." I would suggest that it is you and @late who are being quite economical with the facts, because you both know perfectly well the back story, the aims and effect of the Truman doctrine, and what Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi did in the White Revolution for the people of Iran--particularly the rights of women.
noemon wrote:By that logic Bill Clinton was being fought by the establishment too!!!
He was. They ultimately squeezed the "Regime Change" doctrine out of him in 1998 as he was being impeached. Are you going to pretend you didn't know that Bill Clinton was the one who signed the "Regime Change" policy for Iraq in to law too?
noemon wrote:To top it all off, he has also thrown severe insults against the administration(for no apparent reason) so he can assume victim posture just in case anyone calls his bullshit. Class!
I'm sorry you feel I insulted you. You have my apologies. It was not my intention to insult you. I would certainly have engaged in a profanity- and adjective-laced tirade if it were my intention to insult you.
Rugoz wrote:blackjack's "The Shah was not a dictator. He was a monarch." is hilarious though
Monarchy comes with a very different state of mind. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was not born a commoner. His life was impacted by his status from the moment of his birth until the moment he died. By contrast, Mossadeq, while from an aristocratic family, could have chosen another path in life. Yet, he went straight for law and politics. He was the first Iranian to receive a Doctor of Laws from a European university.
noemon wrote:Whatever the case, the US regime-changed Iran and set in motion the ground work for what Iran has currently become.
Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was the Shah of Iran from 1941 until 1979. There was no regime change in 1953--the head of state and the constitution remained the same. It was Mossadeq who held an illegal referendum, it was Mossadeq who illegally dissolved parliament, and it was Mossadeq who wanted to depose the Shah by referendum.
noemon wrote:Whatever Mossadegh, the Shah and the Mullahs do in their own country is up to the country to sort out and not up to foreigners.
That's very romantic, but a lot of "Iranians" do not see themselves as such. Ask the Kurds, Azeris and Balochis for example. They would claim to be occupied by a foreign power. The Kurds are the same way in Iraq, Syria and Turkey as well.
skinster wrote:Russia supports Iran just like it supported Syria while under the Zionist/Neocon/Wahabi war that's been ongoing on these independent states in the ME.
(cough cough) Great Game (cough cough)
noemon wrote:And that is because your people were created by foreign support in the first place. The Iranians however do not share this history with you and have sufficient historical experience, culture and education to be a fundamentally democratic nation down to their ethnic-character.
Democracy is a European concept. Iran's constitution of 1906 was modelled on the constitution of Belgium.
noemon wrote:The extremes have taken over due to necessity, constant power vacuums and the danger of national annihilation.
That's because a lot of Iran isn't Iranian. The British are facing the same thing with the SNP. The Spanish are facing the same thing with the Basques. The Turks, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians are facing the same thing with the Kurds. Czechoslovakia split into the the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Yugoslavia split up rather famously as well.
noemon wrote: The Chinese are not like that and neither are the Chinese people of Hong Kong either. Neither of you have had a democratic experience at any point in your history.
Let's not forget Taiwan.
Tainari88 wrote:Since the fall of the Shah in the fifties to now,
The Shah fell in 1979.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden