Print Page | Close Window

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

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11516
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 18:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Truth of Anglo American complicity in the Shah’s downfall and
Posted By: Zagros
Subject: The Truth of Anglo American complicity in the Shah’s downfall and
Date Posted: 05-May-2006 at 18:39

 installation of the Khomeiniist regime.

This is for you Beylerbeyi, shame that you have decided to leave, hope you read it anyways. It was not some deluded conspiracy theiry, but like I said, fact.

3/10/06 
What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran 
By Ernst Schroeder
 

My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school and review your online magazine occasionally, I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historianm .  This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.

 

I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.

 

 


order from amazon

 

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski.  Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.  Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

 

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States.  Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines.  Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth.  The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

 

 

The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

 

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement.  By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil.  With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.  In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:

 

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.

 

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day.  This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence.  In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

 

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.  At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.

 

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community.  The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah.  The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time.  The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply.  Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result.  Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah.  The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.

 

 

Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,

 

I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out.  Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]

 

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed.  By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.

 

Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day.  Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day.  To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply.  Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result.  The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.

 

Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives.  The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.

 

There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum.  Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.

 

Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market.  Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]

 

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.

 

Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union.  Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

 

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War:  Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004.  Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

 

[1][1] In 1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent.  The clerics organized violent demonstrations in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later.  See U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran.  The Coming of the Revolution.  December 1987.  The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi.  'BBC Persian Service 60 years on.'  The Iranian.  September 24, 2001.  The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name 'Ayatollah BBC.'

 

[2][2] Comptroller General of the United States.  'Iranian Oil Cutoff:  Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.'  Report to Congress by General Accounting Office.  1979.

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html - http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html




Replies:
Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 05-May-2006 at 20:06

its a sad story, this is why iran should abandon any western nation as a future ally. trade is ok, but never be dependent on them, they will screw everyone over.

 



-------------
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-May-2006 at 03:24
Masters of sculduggery.


Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 06-May-2006 at 21:41

Is it possible that the regime of the Shah could be returned to power somehow?  Are any of the deposed Shah's descendants still alive today and capable of leading the country if they were able to take power?  I know little of this subject so if this question sounds stupid that is why.



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 08:48

There is little chance of the throne ever being reinstated.

 



Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 08-May-2006 at 11:43
Originally posted by Iranian41ife

its a sad story, this is why iran should abandon any western nation as a future ally. trade is ok, but never be dependent on them, they will screw everyone over.

 

Any dependency, especially economically, would cause a nation be the slave of the dominant one.Unfortunately, many world nations seem to go in that direction. 



-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 08:14
Unfortunately,there is no nation in the world which is not dependent ,in one way or another, on another nation. And even if there was such a nation,it would not survive for long in our globalized world.

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 14:33

Very interesting.....and not surprising.

Iranain4life, Iran wont have a future Western ally! And most western allies are just fine.



-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 15:22
Sure its interesting and a little convenient that everyone's always playing the blame game.........try looking first at your self for inadequacies before pointing fingers.
 
How's the Shah doing anyway, living it up in the West I hear and what was all that foul language I was just reading about the West in here LOL


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 17:36
Inevitably enough, the well researched and factual nature of this account has drawn your incontentant scorn for and belittlement of anything to do with Iran!
 
try looking first at your self for inadequacies before pointing fingers.
 
Yes OK...  Bringing to light previously unknown facts about an issue is conveniently relegated to simply  "pointing the finger" by you; and that interpretation has nothing to do with your own rabid anti-Iranian agenda?
 
Our own inadequacy, it seems, has been and is our tolerance of trouble makers - The Shah should have dealt with such trouble makers as ruthlessly as Iran's proximate two bit neighbours have done and continue to do so, we would surely then not be in the predicament in which we find ourselves in today.


Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 18:49
If the anti Iranian stuff is directed at me then I stick by my opinion that at the current moment there is no chance of Iran gaining a serious Western ally. And I do not belittle Iran, it was a great country that has had a huge impact on the world and given us great things. Personally I'm disgusted with the whole Shah thing, its politics at its worst. My comment was merely designed as an antithesis to Iranian41ife and to a degree yours that the West was untrustable and the home of sculduggery. In my opinion it is far more trustable because it is bound by its people and by its media.

-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 19:21
nope it was directed at the poster above, from whose post I quoted an excerpt, he has the same undertone in every Iran related topic.
 
PS I simply said "masters of scullduggery".


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 00:19
Once again you're presenting just one side in what was a global struggle for control between two opponents. The Soviet Union ruled Eastern Europe with an iron fist and didn't hesitate to use force when the Politburo felt it neccessary, as was seen in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Soviets spent billions in their own campaigns of destabilization worldwide, they were active in creating chaos in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America and Asia. I can assure you this wasn't done out of concern for the rights of citizens of those place. Intentions like that would be alien to a ruling body that had more in common with the mafia than what we're familiar with in terms of government here in the West.
 
It's easy now to forget how the Cold War dominated economic, political and military policies worldwide, but it's historically inaccurate to do so.
 


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 05:37
That makes it all good and well then I suppose, a fine and honourable way to treat your ally. The meddling in Iran started about 40 years before the Soviet Union became a force of any significance - what happened thereafter was a continuation of the same old plans to break up Iran in the same way as they had done with the Ottomans, heck Saddam even invaded with a 1935 British military invasion plan of Khuzestan - Divide and conquer, it seems the Soviets are always a convenient fall back for all Western short comings. 
 
Iran is well within its rights, after 1953 and 1979 never to trust nor listen to any word coming from London, Paris, Washington or any of its puppets.
 


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 12:15
Originally posted by Zagros

That makes it all good and well then I suppose, a fine and honourable way to treat your ally. The meddling in Iran started about 40 years before the Soviet Union became a force of any significance - what happened thereafter was a continuation of the same old plans to break up Iran in the same way as they had done with the Ottomans, heck Saddam even invaded with a 1935 British military invasion plan of Khuzestan - Divide and conquer, it seems the Soviets are always a convenient fall back for all Western short comings. 
 
Iran is well within its rights, after 1953 and 1979 never to trust nor listen to any word coming from London, Paris, Washington or any of its puppets.
 
 
No it's not a very good way to treat an ally, the Cold War was a ruthless struggle on many levels. All I'm saying is, there were two sides engaged in that struggle and you're leaving one out in your discussion and it loses it's historical context.


-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 12:45
Well Iran owes alot to the West actually, in WW2 when the Soviet's ceded South Azerbaijan away from Iran, the West-UN worked very hard to keep Iran intact and unified.
 
Why don't you guys cry about this episode in history?
 
Oh no, its far more convenient to move to the West, bad-mouth us and create conspiracy stories and blame us for your own problems, as I said if you can't question yourselves and see your own problems don't point fingers.


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 12:57

This is a history forum, bright spark, this is one aspect of modern Iranian history that is completely ignored in contemporary post modern Iranian analysis (both in the media, by politicians and members of this very forum). I am sorry if that bothers you, but that was that was the primary reason for its posting.

Secondly, it is the West that constantly moans that:
 
Iran is not democratic (1953!);
and that Iran is oppressive (1979!) - 
 
while ignoring the fundamental part that it played in the creation of those facts.
 
So why don't you stop crying and go gratify yourself over your concept of "Turan" instead?


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 13:48
Proving just how paranoid you guys are once again Clap
 
The West is the reason Iran is intact, thank us instead of moving to the West and spreading nonsense about us just because we give you freedom of speech.
 
I havn't met many lover's of the Shah, since when was he "democratic"? today's regime is more democratic if were gonna make a comparison.
 
If your so upset about the situation in Iran go and do somthing about it and stop blaming people.
 
 


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:02
Again you miss the point, or avoid it more like, your ad hominem opinings are devoid of the topic and rationale behind the thread.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:09
Its not me drifting away from the topic now is it Wink

-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:24
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?


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:35
My point is these are silly stories made up by Leftists feeling sorry for themselves.
 
Oh the horror of Capitalist Western countries, how dare they try to protect their interests and combat the virtuous bastons or all that is good on Earth the righteous Soviets.
 
Listen, the only reason you can even talk about such issues is because of the freedom's of these societies, it was inconceivable to have such open discussions and rights in that society.
 
The Shah wasn't democratic and if he payed more attention to the needs of the people the revolutionaries would not have been able to gather the popular support needed for such an act.
 
Thus, don't blame your problems on others.


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 16:16
My point is these are silly stories made up by Leftists feeling sorry for themselves.
 
Proof? You know nothing of the author nor his motivation, yet you have the audacity to make such a wild and obnoxious claim?  Pleaase... get over yourself.
 
Listen, the only reason you can even talk about such issues is because of the freedom's of these societies, it was inconceivable to have such open discussions and rights in that society.
 
Irrelevance.
 
The Shah wasn't democratic and if he payed more attention to the needs of the people the revolutionaries would not have been able to gather the popular support needed for such an act.
 
It is already known what happened to the government that tried to pay attention to the needs of the people in 1953.
 
Thus, don't blame your problems on others.
 
Thus, you have no point, refer to:
 
Originally posted by Zagros

This is a history forum, bright spark, this is one aspect of modern Iranian history that is completely ignored in contemporary post modern Iranian analysis (both in the media, by politicians and members of this very forum). I am sorry if that bothers you, but that was that was the primary reason for its posting.

Secondly, it is the West that constantly moans that:
 
Iran is not democratic (1953!);
and that Iran is oppressive (1979!) - 
 
while ignoring the fundamental part that it played in the creation of those facts.
 
So why don't you stop crying and go gratify yourself over your concept of "Turan" instead?
 


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 16:49
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?
 
America departed from its benevolent foreign policy because it had to.  The luxury of isolation, and of scolding Britain and France for imperialist possessions evaporated with the realization that neither of those powers any longer had the strength or will to continue their previous roles.  This became critical in 1949-53.  The US was the last man standing and had no choice but to assume those roles along with its own.  it was not a preference, it was circumstance.
 
Point:  USSR consolidating control of all east Europe and pushing down into Greece, 1947-49.  (Yes I know about Yalta and Teheran during the war, but Greece was not one of the sacrificial lambs)
 
Point:  Chinese communist victory in the civil war, 1949.  North Korean invasion of the south, 1950.
 
Point:  British communist problems in Malaya; French communist problems in Indochina; communist insurgency in the Phillipines.
 
It looked like a problem and smelled like a problem.  When the possibility of Iran turning toward or falling under Soviet influence was seen as a concern the Korean War was still on.  The Brits could not engage that problem singlehanded any longer.  The possibility of Soviet presence or control of the Persian Gulf could not be tolerated, so the US put on that old Savile Row suit and changed its foreign policy forever.  Dr. Mosadegh probably was not going red, but the chance could not be taken.  Mosadegh was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
Tough world.  Tough choices.  No crystal ball to see 20, 30, 50 years down the road.  What's done is done.
 
 


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 17:23
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.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 17:31
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.
 
The USSR and its influence could not be separated from events in Iran in 1953.  Mosadegh had not only nationalized the AIOC but had institutionalized collective agriculture and pressured the shah into relinquishing control of the army.  The possibility of his drift toward Moscow (Russia was then on Iran's border) and the elimination of Western influence, including the possible invitation of Soviet technicians, managers, etc. to run the oil industry, was seen as presaging Soviet presence in the Persian Gulf.  That chance could not be taken.  Once there, they would not have left short of war.
 
 


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 17:42
That was the scare mongering tactic that the British used to get the Americans on board, Mossadegh was a nationalist and was backed by the anti-communist National Front (Jebhe Melli). 
 
At this time, the British were bank rolling the Mullah movement (something which was started in the early 40s)  as a counter to Iranian nationalism, tempering them in preparation for what they eventually became.


Posted By: Dark Lord
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 00:54
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.




Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 07:43
Dark Lord:
 
Interesting post.  Thanks for the perspective.  I do feel the Iranians are going to have to handle this themselves.
 
Unfortunately for both of us, the Shah, as well as Jimmy Carter, were both weak, vacilating leaders.  I do believe that there is a history lesson to be had from the handling of types like Khomeini (and bin Laden):  Don't exile them, shoot them.  Better them than many thousands of others.
 
Any cleric that gets rich is nothing by a con man.  That goes for the self-serving shysters in Iran as well as the American TV evengelicals with their polyester hairdos and "Christian" elevator music.
 
 


Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:19
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'.
 
Agreement with all but this section.
 
However....Britian is a second rate power but you need to mention so is most of the world. The only first rate power is America. Britian on paper isnt all that brilliant but the sheer depth of the Commonwealth, the good feelings in some colonies (balanced by the whinging from others, most of whom are of course within their right and true but also often just as bad, can anyone say Mugabe?). There is also the cultural influence (just look at how everything is Anglo-American, Britain has had probably the largest effect on America, not least the Constitutional monarchy, Parliament, Magna Carta etc). Not to mention the influence on countries like S. Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. Next is the amount of money, services and specialists in the country. London retains its right as one of the economic giants, as does the FTSE, despite being a rock smaller than just about most countries in the world. Next we have a very good economy (top 30 I believe), brillaint (if tiny and underequipped) army, good diplomats and civil service. Plus a very good Intelligence bureau (all of them).
And we dont "kowtow", generally we have gone along with American power because it was out only hope (for the world too, cue the Cold War). Aside from that its payed off, compared to most of Europe Britain is pretty well off (striking French, German economic meltdown). And it keeps the Americans on side, always a good thing. Plus they rarely cost anything and work.


-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:29
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the 3rd most populated nation of the European Union with approximately 60 million people. It was also a founding member of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO - NATO and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations - United Nations , in which it is a permanent member of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council - UN Security Council . The British economy is the second largest in the European Union and the fourth largest in the world, with a GDP of 2.1 Trillion USD. The British capital, London, is one of the most important economical and financial centres in the world, alongside New York. The United Kingdom also yields a very formidable, technologically advanced, military. It's defence spending is the fifth largest in the world. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy - Royal Navy is the second largest navy in the World in terms of gross tonnage and is in charge of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear arm. It consists of four http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_class_submarine - SSBNs armed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile - Trident D5 SLBMs.
 
Don't underestimate the power and sphere of influence we have and don't forget either that underestimation is a powerfull weapon while blagging being arrogant and over confident is a weakness Wink 


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:52
Well I think Bulldog illustrated that pretty damn well...Big smile

-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 09:58
Argentina underestimated UK's capabilties in 1982 with disastrous consequences.
 
 


Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 10:17
That said we underestimated their Exocets which nearly ruined that whole perilous campaign...

-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 16:38
Originally posted by Dampier

That said we underestimated their Exocets which nearly ruined that whole perilous campaign...
 
It is not that you underestimated the exocets.  Regardless of Anglo feelings about French attitudes, their modern military equipment is first rate.  And that would not have changed the outcome of the war.
 
 


Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 17:16
Nah, I've always respected Fench armed forces. Anyway they sent us a team to help avoid Exocet disasters.
Outcome of war though...one of those on a carrier and bang there goes the force.


-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 24-May-2006 at 11:41
The French millitary isn't what is once was and has lost respect in regards to actions in Algeria and Ruwanda.
 
In today's world probobly more than at any other time in history big money talks.   Due to the increasingly globalising world you don't need to occupy countries through millitary measures or occupy etc were in a new age.   The new age warriors, armies and conquerors can be found in the business room, they have immense power and control.   Ofcourse millitary is still very important buts its more as a back-up measure, if you've got a powefull economy you need a strong millitary to back it up or you'll just get pushed around.
 
Territorially Britain isn't what it once was but the people who take this as a weakness are greatly mistaken, keeping an Empire of such magnitude afloat is a huge burdon and expense and is unessecary today.
 
The reason for this is the English language has become the Lingua Franca of the World Big smile  we don't need to invade and occupy anywhere anymore as the language of Business, trade and dialogue today is English which shows our influence and power today.
 
We don't need to adapt, the world has to adapt to our norms, we have strong strategic bases in key areas of the ex-colonial land and influential people at the highest level of most areas of commerce not to mention the Common-Wealth .........
 
Regards


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 24-May-2006 at 18:55
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.

-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 25-May-2006 at 08:32
Hey at least we didn't leave an ever lasting hatred and don't have people claim that we killed over a million people half a century ago which are re-surfacing today Wink
 
The most successfull victory we have had has been the war over language, we were always underestimated while the French thought the whole world would embrace their language. (as apparently its superior, which is evidently not, one only has to mention Shakespear, Chaucer, Dickens....)
 
Our language was underestimated but look at the today, were all writting and speaking in this world-wide lingua Franca.


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 26-May-2006 at 06:04
But they will mention Voltaire...and there my French literature runs out. Wink
 
French used to be the language of civilisation, diplomacy and the like. Before that it was Latin. Now it is English. I wouldnt be surprised if in a few years it was Indian or Chinese.


-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com