The Truth of Anglo American complicity in the Shah�s downfall and

My point is these are silly stories made up by Leftists feeling sorry for themselves.

Originally posted by Zagros Yes, it is and was you.   America on its own stopped Iran being divided between the UK and USSR - that was before it became party to the Anglo doctrine of divide and conquer... 1953 is the most prominent year in which it departed from its previous largely benevolent foreign policy, but that America is long gone, history.   So, what's your point again?

Originally posted by Zagros 1953 had nothing to do with the USSR though, that is a simplistic way to look at it - it was sparked by sore British whinging against Mossadegh's nationalisation of the country's oil assets to the Americans.   The foreign policy of which I speak is epitomised by today's predicament in Iraq, 15 years after the collapse of the Soviets.   If you note the title of the book, it is: A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.

Alot of Iranians claim that the ascension to power of the Mullahs was a British conspiracy, and the British control the current regime - but I find this highly unlikely. It exaggerates British influence, based on an old order - today, Britain is, at best, a second-rate power which kowtows whatever policy America pursues, as a sort of 'junior partner'. In 1979, British intelligence did not have the capacity to orchestrate a seemingly spontaneous movement. Futhermore, the current Iranian regime does not give any particular preference to British firms - unlike a $40 billion liquid gas contract that was signed with China. And it is unlikely that China has any influence over Iranian policy because of it. It is true that Carter was hypocritically censuring the Shah-regime over "human rights abuses" which were perpetrated by the same secret service agency (SAVAK) that was trained by the West to maintain the Shah's power and control political dissent. But the revolution itself was a combination of different aspects: leftists, Islamists, and a motley of groups who opposed the Israeli Mossad trained SAVAKs systematic torture and assassination of dissidents, or even mildly disgruntled individuals. When the revolution occured, the multitude of protestors on the streets had no idea the Shah would be replaced by a theocracy. But the Shah was a weak leader, hence the term "suitecase monarch". Under his hard exterior lay the same insecure boy who travelled to Swiss bording schools and was more accustomed to drinking champagne with European high-society then going to a local Tehran kabob house. Khomeini, for most of his life, was an obscure renegade cleric, shunned by the mainstream clergy from such notables as Grand Ayatollah Borujerdi, and was kicked out of one country to another for his rabble-rousing and political agitation. But Khomeini was a shrewd and wise man, and utilized the prevailing discontent to his advantage - rallying around the anti-Shah bandwagon, while surreptitiously concealing his intentions to enforce a 'velayat-e-faqih'. The revolution did not benefit US policy, as it denied them the huge market to dump their goods and the Shah was a loyal gendarme of the US, making huge investments in the military from US arms sales. In fact, Iran was given preference over any other country to the purchase of, what was at the time, the Americans latest fighter plane, the F-16 tomcat - even before Israel. The Iranian Revolution was simply a botched US policy, which was speerheaded by the only group that could unite the various political factions under one banner: Islamists. You must remember, at that time, during the pre-revolution era, religious clerics still held a sort of mystic among the masses, who viewed the 'holy men' - who're recently impoverished of their stipend donations and land monopoly (under the Shah's 'white revolution') - as somehow benevolent and genuine. Now their pockets are fat, and so are their bellies.

Iranians should take responsibility for the 1979 revolution and the current situation and not scapegoat others. The toppling of the Shah and the installment of a clerical regime, in retrospect, was a positive occurence. It abolished an outdated hereditary monarchy that has plagued us for eons and exposed the religious clerics for the self-serving shysters they are. These are the same holy fakirs that tried to gain monopoly over State power during Darius' time - same racket, different robes. Their time is finished - if not in our generation - but they are finished. The Land of the Aryans will be free.






Dark Lord.

Originally posted by Dark Lord Alot of Iranians claim that the ascension to power of the Mullahs was a British conspiracy, and the British control the current regime - but I find this highly unlikely. It exaggerates British influence, based on an old order - today, Britain is, at best, a second-rate power which kowtows whatever policy America pursues, as a sort of 'junior partner'.

Well I think Bulldog illustrated that pretty damn well...

That said we underestimated their Exocets which nearly ruined that whole perilous campaign...

Nah, I've always respected Fench armed forces. Anyway they sent us a team to help avoid Exocet disasters.

French military of today is very good and its been underestimated this whole century. After all did Britian, America or Russia do any better in conflicts similar to Algeria- look at Malaya, Afghanistan, Vietnam and the like.

But they will mention Voltaire...and there my French literature runs out.