• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Shah Reconsidered[W:39]

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It has for some time been possible to argue that a remarkably revolutionary, modernizing figure in the Middle East in the 20th century was the late Shah of Iran. That argument has now been made in an excellent new book.

A softer portrait of Iran’s enigmatic shahBy Nazila Fathi

. . . Cooper’s narrative describes in depth the building blocks of the movement against the shah. Most shocking perhaps were the deceptive tactics the opposition used to demonize him. Cooper claims, for example, that Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, a nationalist-left activist who deposed the shah with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and later served as the first president, told him how they manipulated the Western media’s coverage of Iran. The revolutionaries “studied western journalists’ reporting methods, fed them story ideas, steered them toward sympathetic interviewees, and supplied them with the revolutionary movement’s facts and figures,” Cooper argues, citing Bani-Sadr. This led to the publication of grossly inflated numbers of activists jailed and executed by the shah’s secret police. The figures, Cooper says, helped provoke anti-shah sentiments and were not corrected, even after Red Cross inspectors investigated and rejected the claims. Revolutionaries themselves, the book notes, have since refuted the numbers.
To bolster the impression that the shah was bent on murdering his people, the opposition initiated violence and blamed it on the shah. In the year before the victory of the revolution, the Islamists burned hundreds of private businesses, including cinemas, Cooper writes. The most brutal attack came in August 1978, when 430 men, women and children were burned to death at Rex Cinema in the southern city of Abadan — the worst arson since World War II. The inferno was intended “to destabilize and panic Iranian society,” Cooper argues. It also successfully fanned the flames of hostility toward the shah across the country. The culprit, Cooper writes, based on evidence in the 2013 book “Days of God” by James Buchan, was Hossein Takbalizadeh, an Islamist linked to a local Khomeini underground cell who was eventually tried and convicted of murder by an Iranian court after the revolution. . . .
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

If he did such a great job why did Iran become what it is today?
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

If he did such a great job why did Iran become what it is today?

Because of the evil of his successors.

. . . Until the end, “nationalism was like a religion” for the shah, Cooper argues. Over nearly four decades, the shah transformed a backward, poverty-stricken country into a powerful one with the most educated workforce in the Middle East. In the days leading to the revolution, as protests against him culminated, lymphoma ravaged his body. Yet he refused to kill to keep his throne. According to Cooper, an aide at the shah’s deathbed asked the former ruler, “Why didn’t you finish all out against Khomeini?” The shah’s answer: “I wasn’t the man. If you wanted someone to kill people you had to find somebody else.”
This sober narrative will resonate with many Iranians — including myself — who lived under the grim conditions Khomeini introduced after the revolution. As other countries in the Middle East are going through similar transformations and vying for political reform, Cooper reminds us of the ability of power-hungry leaders, capable of manipulating people’s desire for change, to build even more brutal and unaccountable systems.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

The Shah was literally a puppet of England. The Shah let England take Iran's oil which enriched himself greatly but not the people of Iran.

This further enraged the people of Iran with the Shah's war toys, extravagant living and nepotism, for examples, while the people lived in squalor.
Iranians wanted regime change. Sometimes, as the US have discovered in the middle east, that change can be very costly.

Sidenote: Jack, would you have agreed to the US allowing the despot, Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Iraq?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

The Shah was literally a puppet of England. The Shah let England take Iran's oil which enriched himself but not the people of Iran.

". . . Over nearly four decades, the shah transformed a backward, poverty-stricken country into a powerful one with the most educated workforce in the Middle East. . . ."
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Because of the evil of his successors.
. . . Until the end, “nationalism was like a religion” for the shah, Cooper argues. Over nearly four decades, the shah transformed a backward, poverty-stricken country into a powerful one with the most educated workforce in the Middle East. In the days leading to the revolution, as protests against him culminated, lymphoma ravaged his body. Yet he refused to kill to keep his throne. According to Cooper, an aide at the shah’s deathbed asked the former ruler, “Why didn’t you finish all out against Khomeini?” The shah’s answer: “I wasn’t the man. If you wanted someone to kill people you had to find somebody else.”
This sober narrative will resonate with many Iranians — including myself — who lived under the grim conditions Khomeini introduced after the revolution. As other countries in the Middle East are going through similar transformations and vying for political reform, Cooper reminds us of the ability of power-hungry leaders, capable of manipulating people’s desire for change, to build even more brutal and unaccountable systems.



If he had done a better job there wouldn't have been successors.

The man is dead and buried,he'll never have a chance to correct his errors.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

The Shah was literally a puppet of England. The Shah let England take Iran's oil which enriched himself greatly but not the people of Iran.

This further enraged the people of Iran with the Shah's war toys, extravagant living and nepotism, for examples, while the people lived in squalor.
Iranians wanted regime change. Sometimes, as the US has discovered in the middle east, that change can be very costly. Sidenote: Jack, would you have agreed to the US allowing the despot, Saddam Hussein, to remain in power in Iraq because of the 'stability' Hussein gave to Iraq? Actually, Hussein was a puppet of the US because of Iraq's oil resources.
". . . Over nearly four decades, the shah transformed a backward, poverty-stricken country into a powerful one with the most educated workforce in the Middle East. . . ."
Jack, I'd like you to respond to the bolded. And it was the riches of oil revenues that transformed Iran in those 4 decades under the Shah.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

If he had done a better job there wouldn't have been successors.

The man is dead and buried,he'll never have a chance to correct his errors.

Sometimes even the best effort is trumped by bad luck.

. . . The arrival of William Sullivan, U.S. ambassador to Tehran, in the summer of 1977 was not good news for the shah, Cooper contends. “He showed little or any sensitivity to the unique pressures that the shah faced at home by supporting U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, selling oil to Israel, and guarding the approaches to the Persian Gulf from any array of adversaries,” Cooper writes . Sullivan even joked about the shah’s fall and a possible revolution in front of the royal family’s friends and advisers. In his communications with Washington, Sullivan continued to dismiss worries by moderate religious leaders — including opponents of the shah — over the consequences of the shah’s departure, arguing that their fears “were not very coherent or well reasoned.” It was only in the shah’s final days in Iran, Cooper concludes, that “Ambassador Sullivan received crucial intelligence suggesting that he might have backed the wrong horse after all.”. . .
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

". . . Over nearly four decades, the shah transformed a backward, poverty-stricken country into a powerful one with the most educated workforce in the Middle East. . . ."

The Shah was a CIA stooge. I know you defend all things CIA. Mossadegh would have done a far superior development program than the Shah, The USA and Great Britain made the Shah a weelthy dictator at the expense of the Iranian citizenry.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

". . . Over nearly four decades, the shah transformed a backward, poverty-stricken country into a powerful one with the most educated workforce in the Middle East. . . ."

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

While some seem to be hell-bent on taking us in the opposite direction! :eek:
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

The Shah was a CIA stooge. I know you defend all things CIA. Mossadegh would have done a far superior development program than the Shah, The USA and Great Britain made the Shah a weelthy dictator at the expense of the Iranian citizenry.

As usual, an assertion without foundation.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

While some seem to be hell-bent on taking us in the opposite direction! :eek:

Happy Sunday, Polgara.:2wave:

The struggle for knowledge is never-ending.:shock:
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Sometimes even the best effort is trumped by bad luck.

. . . The arrival of William Sullivan, U.S. ambassador to Tehran, in the summer of 1977 was not good news for the shah, Cooper contends. “He showed little or any sensitivity to the unique pressures that the shah faced at home by supporting U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, selling oil to Israel, and guarding the approaches to the Persian Gulf from any array of adversaries,” Cooper writes . Sullivan even joked about the shah’s fall and a possible revolution in front of the royal family’s friends and advisers. In his communications with Washington, Sullivan continued to dismiss worries by moderate religious leaders — including opponents of the shah — over the consequences of the shah’s departure, arguing that their fears “were not very coherent or well reasoned.” It was only in the shah’s final days in Iran, Cooper concludes, that “Ambassador Sullivan received crucial intelligence suggesting that he might have backed the wrong horse after all.”. . .
Yes. When the empire of England fell, the US swooped in to fill the void and became the Shah's puppet master - the master or Iran's oil. The people of Iran knew this.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Happy Sunday, Polgara.:2wave:

The struggle for knowledge is never-ending.
:shock:



And some people waste our time talking about things that are over and done with and can't be changed.

This thread is a total waste of time.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

And some people waste our time talking about things that are over and done with and can't be changed.

This thread is a total waste of time.


So we should never talk about the past, ever?

That seems rather short sighted.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Yes. When the empire of England fell, the US swooped in to fill the void and became the Shah's puppet master - the master or Iran's oil. The people of Iran knew this.

Do you think the UK or US directed the Shah to be one of the founding members of OPEC?

[h=3]OPEC : Brief History[/h]www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/24.htm


OPEC


The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962) – suspended its membership from January 2009-December 2015; Libya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973) – suspended its membership from December 1992-October 2007; Angola (2007 ...






 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

So we should never talk about the past, ever?

That seems rather short sighted.



If you want to waste all of your time crying about a past that you can't change,get after it.

:lol:

I'm going to stay focused on the present and the future.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

And some people waste our time talking about things that are over and done with and can't be changed.

This thread is a total waste of time.

"Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana



 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Do you think the UK or US directed the Shah to be one of the founding members of OPEC?

[h=3]OPEC : Brief History[/h]www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/24.htm


OPEC


The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962) – suspended its membership from January 2009-December 2015; Libya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973) – suspended its membership from December 1992-October 2007; Angola (2007 ...






No. Of course not. But OPEC wasn't concerned with the welfare of the people of Iran, either. It was just another (cartel) that was most concerned with propping up oil prices.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

No. Of course not. But OPEC wasn't concerned with the welfare of the people of Iran, either. It was just another (cartel) that was most concerned with propping up oil prices.

So . . . how could a putative US "puppet master" have allowed such a thing? Perhaps because your narrative is without foundation? As the record makes quite clear, the Shah invested the preponderance of Iran's oil wealth in national development.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

So . . . how could a putative US "puppet master" have allowed such a thing? Perhaps because your narrative is without foundation? As the record makes quite clear, the Shah invested the preponderance of Iran's oil wealth in national development.
Well, many of the people of Iran still lived in poverty. Especially the agrarian folks. They also saw all the military toys the Shah purchased for Iran and the riches of the Shah's immediate family and his lackeys.
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Those who waste all of their time crying about the past will never accomplish anything.
Unless it's the 2000 presidential election, maybe? The JFK assassination? The number of African-Americans in jails?
 
Re: The Shah Reconsidered

Unless it's the 2000 presidential election, maybe? The JFK assassination? The number of African-Americans in jails?



You left out the attack on Pearl Harbor,men on the Moon,9/11 and where was Obama born.

Get your act together.

:lol:

How can the USA ever move forward if it doesn't straighten out all of those issues?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom