[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What really happened to the Shah
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: What really happened to the Shah Reply with quote

What Really Happened to the Shah of Iran



By Ernst Schroeder

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

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.

"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][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][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 d?pan>nte 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.


Last edited by blank on Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:36 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The above article is dedicated to those that "don't believe" there was any "Foreign hands" in the bloody revolution.........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: Reza Pardisan



Carter Sold out Iran 1977-1978

Chuck Morse

As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the worlds most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today. At the time, a senior Iranian diplomat in Washington observed, President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America. Under the guise of promoting human rights, Carter made demands on the Shah while blackmailing him with the threat that if the demands weren’t fulfilled, vital military aid and training would be withheld. This strange policy, carried out against a staunch, 20 year Middle East ally, was a repeat of similar policies applied in the past by US governments to other allies such as pre Mao China and pre Castro Cuba.
Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release political prisoners including known terrorists and to put an end to military tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a platform for agitation and propaganda. This is a standard tactic of the left then and now. The free world operates at a distinct disadvantage to Marxist and Islamic nations in this regard as in those countries, trials are staged to show the political faith of the ruling elite. Fair trials, an independent judiciary, and a search for justice is considered to be a western bourgeois prejudice.

Carter pressured Iran to allow for free assembly which meant that groups would be able to meet and agitate for the overthrow of the government. It goes without saying that such rights didn’t exist in any Marxist or Islamic nation. The planned and predictable result of these policies was an escalation of opposition to the Shah, which would be viewed by his enemies as a weakness. A well-situated internal apparatus in Iran receiving its marching orders from the Kremlin egged on this growing opposition.

By the fall of 1977, university students, working in tandem with a Shiite clergy that had long opposed the Shahs modernizing policies, began a well coordinated and financed series of street demonstrations supported by a media campaign reminiscent of the 1947-1948 campaign against Chinas Chiang Ki Shek in favor of the agrarian reformer Mao tse Tung. At this point the Shah was unable to check the demonstrators, who were instigating violence as a means of inflaming the situation and providing their media stooges with atrocity propaganda. Rumors were circulating amongst Iranians that the CIA under the orders of President Carter organized these demonstrations.

In November 1977, the Shah and his Empress, Farah Diba, visited the White House where they were met with hostility. They were greeted by nearly 4,000 Marxist-led Iranian students, many wearing masks, waving clubs, and carrying banners festooned with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations. The rioters were allowed within 100 feet of the White House where they attacked other Iranians and Americans gathered to welcome the Shah. Only 15 were arrested and quickly released. Inside the White House, Carter pressured the Shah to implement even more radical changes. Meanwhile, the Soviets were mobilizing a campaign of propaganda, espionage, sabotage, and terror in Iran. The Shah was being squeezed on two sides.
In April 1978, Moscow would instigate a bloody coup in Afghanistan and install the communist puppet Nur Mohammad Taraki. Taraki would proceed to call for a jihad against the Ikhwanu Shayateen which translates into brothers of devils, a label applied to opponents of the new red regime in Kabul and to the Iranian government. Subversives and Soviet-trained agents swarmed across the long Afghanistan/Iran border to infiltrate Shiite mosques and other Iranian institutions. By November 1978, there was an estimated 500,000 Soviet backed Afghanis in Iran where, among other activities, they set up training camps for terrorists.

Khomeini, a 78-year-old Shiite cleric whose brother had been imprisoned as a result of activities relating to his Iranian Communist party affiliations, and who had spent 15 years in exile in Bath Socialist Iraq, was poised to return. In exile, Khomeini spoke of the creation of a revolutionary Islamic republic, which would be anti-Western, socialist, and with total power in the hands of an ayatollah. In his efforts to violently overthrow the government of Iran, Khomeini received the full support of the Soviets.

Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party, in exile in East Berlin, stated, The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeinis initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollahs program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party. Khomeinis closest advisor, Sadegh Ghothzadeh, was well known as a revolutionary with close links to communist intelligence. In January 1998, Pravda, the official Soviet organ, officially endorsed the Khomeini revolution.

American leaders were also supporting Khomeini. After the Pravda endorsement, Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, held a press conference where he reported on a trip to Iran and a Paris visit with Khomeini. He urged the US government to take no action to help the Shah so that Iran could determine its own fate. Clark played a behind the scenes role influencing members of Congress to not get involved in the crisis. Perhaps UN Ambassador Andrew Young best expressed the thinking of the left at the time when he stated that, if successful, Khomeini would eventually be hailed as a saint.

Khomeini was allowed to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism that has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Jimmy Carter, and the extremists in his administration are to blame and should be held accountable
.


Chuck Morse Is the author of Why I’m a Right-Wing Extremist


www.chuckmorse.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eternal1



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those who have a more simple and trusting view of the world.

This event would be a frightening and revealing case study that would demonstrate the absolute amoral and underhanded practices of 'free governments' from Europe to the US.

Its a sad world, when you reach the very difficult realisation that human blood holds little or no value at all.

Just one look at world politics, (not through the eyes of the media) is all the confirmation that you need of this fact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately, BBC (persian Language) is still up to its old tricks... with mostly guests that are pro iri, continues interviewing commis (old tudeh party). Much the same with VOA, & Radio Farda (financed by the US taxpayers).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: sosiran
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:14 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Cc: vice.president@whitehouse.gov; president@whitehouse.gov; Roundtable@Voanews.com; Newsandviews@Voanews.com; radiofarda@rferl.com
Subject: American dollars via VOA & Radio Farda for Hooshang Amirahmadi & against democracy in Iran?


PASS IT ON PLEASE

As America is to use 50+ million dollars promoting democracy in Iran and spending much of it on radio and TV stations such as VOA and Radio Farda, and while the enemies of opposition groups (AIC, NIAC and the rest of their gang) and AIC's visiting personality, Mehrangiz Kar are criticizing American leaders for spending American dollars and for American interference and opposing such monetary spending for opposition groups, see the amount of air time given to the worst enemy of opposition groups on VOA and Radio Farda just in the past 10 days:

45 minutes with Hooshang Amirahmadi the worst enemy of the opposition groups in America by VOA on March 24, 2006

Interview of Hooshang Amirahmadi by Radio Farda on March 18, 2006

Thank you VOA and thank you Radio Farda! In Iran, the innocent voices are suppressed and in America, the American dollars and resources through VOA and Radio Farda are being spent on anti-opposition and anti-freedom-loving and pro-IRI Iranians such as Hooshang Amirahamdi. It is sad how individuals like Amirahmadi for 8 years mislead Iranians to a darkened dead-end road of Khatamism and reformism yet VOA still considers him as political expert?. Why is it that individuals like Dr. Mohammad Parvin, Ms. Homa Ehsan, Mr. Aryo Pirooznia, Dr. Kaveh Karimi, Mr. Behrooz Souresrafil, Dr. Jalil Bahar, Mr. Morteza Anvari, Mr. Maybodi, Ms. Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi and many other true freedom fighters and decent compatriots do not get such interviews? Is it because they are not as wealthy as Mr. Amirahmadi is and that they do not have the support of Halliburton and ExxonMobil or is duplicity a prerequisite?

It is puzzling how VOA and Radio Farda do not see the hypocrisy of Amirahmadi where he claims Shiite of being more for peace than war yet he claims that for the past 27 years IRI did not want to negotiate with Iran. This is in light of the fact that IRI has been chanting, death to America, and death to Israel, on a weekly basis, for the past 27 years and while the president of IRI calls for the state of Israel to be wiped off the map. Indeed, Mr. Amirahmadi must have looked up the word "peace" in a wrong dictionary!

It is baffling how, in one hand, Amirahmadi justifies Iran-America talks over Iraq by claiming that IRI has good relationship with the Kurds when in reality Kurds have been brutalized by IRI forces in the past 27 years and just 2 days ago 2 more young members of human rights in Kurdistan were arrested and imprisoned.
On the other hand, the so-called political expert, justifies the negotiation between America and IRI for the mere existence of long borders of Iran-Iraq, as if this negotiation is intended to teach IRI the techniques not to mismanage Iran's borders anymore and somehow teach them to prevent IRI made bombs and IRI funded insurgents from entering into Iraq.
It is a mystery how VOA and Radio Farda did not see the utter past hypocrisy of Amirahmadi's interviews with Deutsche Welle and Radio Farda regarding Iranian plane parts where he blames America for not selling plane parts while he also blames America for selling plane parts to Iran.
Indeed it is an insult to Iranian nation's intelligence when VOA persists on calling him an "Iranian political expert". Almost all opposition members know that the single worst enemy of opposition groups in America is Hooshang Amirahmadi and his well-coordinated supporting groups such as AIC, NIAC, CASMII, antidiscrimination.org, StopWarOnIran.org, etc.
While Radio Farda and VOA are promoting their so-called Iranian political expert, as American dollars are being spent on Hooshang Amirahmadi via VOA and Radio Farda and as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Boeing, Halliburton dollars are being spent on this hypocritical expert and his organization such as AIC, let this be a wake-up call for my compatriots and 70 million oppressed within Iran that we have no one but ourselves and our own tiny and penniless Iranian radio and TV stations in America to defend our motherland's interest.

We shall overcome,

Siavash


Last edited by blank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:28 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iranian Boy



Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 379

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blank wrote:
From: sosiran97 [mailto:sosiran97@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:14 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Cc: vice.president@whitehouse.gov; president@whitehouse.gov; Roundtable@Voanews.com; Newsandviews@Voanews.com; radiofarda@rferl.com
Subject: American dollars via VOA & Radio Farda for Hooshang Amirahmadi & against democracy in Iran?


PASS IT ON PLEASE

As America is to use 50+ million dollars promoting democracy in Iran and spending much of it on radio and TV stations such as VOA and Radio Farda, and while the enemies of opposition groups (AIC, NIAC and the rest of their gang) and AIC's visiting personality, Mehrangiz Kar are criticizing American leaders for spending American dollars and for American interference and opposing such monetary spending for opposition groups, see the amount of air time given to the worst enemy of opposition groups on VOA and Radio Farda just in the past 10 days:

45 minutes with Hooshang Amirahmadi the worst enemy of the opposition groups in America by VOA on March 24, 2006

Interview of Hooshang Amirahmadi by Radio Farda on March 18, 2006

Thank you VOA and thank you Radio Farda! In Iran, the innocent voices are suppressed and in America, the American dollars and resources through VOA and Radio Farda are being spent on anti-opposition and anti-freedom-loving and pro-IRI Iranians such as Hooshang Amirahamdi. It is sad how individuals like Amirahmadi for 8 years mislead Iranians to a darkened dead-end road of Khatamism and reformism yet VOA still considers him as political expert?. Why is it that individuals like Dr. Mohammad Parvin, Ms. Homa Ehsan, Mr. Aryo Pirooznia, Dr. Kaveh Karimi, Mr. Behrooz Souresrafil, Dr. Jalil Bahar, Mr. Morteza Anvari, Mr. Maybodi, Ms. Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi and many other true freedom fighters and decent compatriots do not get such interviews? Is it because they are not as wealthy as Mr. Amirahmadi is and that they do not have the support of Halliburton and ExxonMobil or is duplicity a prerequisite?

It is puzzling how VOA and Radio Farda do not see the hypocrisy of Amirahmadi where he claims Shiite of being more for peace than war yet he claims that for the past 27 years IRI did not want to negotiate with Iran. This is in light of the fact that IRI has been chanting, death to America, and death to Israel, on a weekly basis, for the past 27 years and while the president of IRI calls for the state of Israel to be wiped off the map. Indeed, Mr. Amirahmadi must have looked up the word "peace" in a wrong dictionary!

It is baffling how, in one hand, Amirahmadi justifies Iran-America talks over Iraq by claiming that IRI has good relationship with the Kurds when in reality Kurds have been brutalized by IRI forces in the past 27 years and just 2 days ago 2 more young members of human rights in Kurdistan were arrested and imprisoned.
On the other hand, the so-called political expert, justifies the negotiation between America and IRI for the mere existence of long borders of Iran-Iraq, as if this negotiation is intended to teach IRI the techniques not to mismanage Iran's borders anymore and somehow teach them to prevent IRI made bombs and IRI funded insurgents from entering into Iraq.
It is a mystery how VOA and Radio Farda did not see the utter past hypocrisy of Amirahmadi's interviews with Deutsche Welle and Radio Farda regarding Iranian plane parts where he blames America for not selling plane parts while he also blames America for selling plane parts to Iran.
Indeed it is an insult to Iranian nation's intelligence when VOA persists on calling him an "Iranian political expert". Almost all opposition members know that the single worst enemy of opposition groups in America are Hooshang Amirahmadi and his well-coordinated supporting groups such as AIC, NIAC, CASMII, antidiscrimination.org, StopWarOnIran.org, etc.
While Radio Farda and VOA are promoting their so-called Iranian political expert, as American dollars are being spent on Hooshang Amirahmadi via VOA and Radio Farda and as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Boeing, Halliburton dollars are being spent on this hypocritical expert and his organization such as AIC, let this be a wake-up call for my compatriots and 70 million oppressed within Iran that we have no one but ourselves and our own tiny and penniless Iranian radio and TV stations in America to defend our motherland's interest.

We shall overcome,

Siavash



Dear Blank
I can only agree with the article you posted.
I have always been against radio farda in particular and also VOA.
What we don´t know is why the american support goes to such media and opposition groups. It is quite funny actually if USA still doesn´t know who is real opposition and who is fake opposition. Any Iranian with just a little IQ can realise that, how the USA have still not found out remains an unanswered question.
_________________
Long live the memory of Shahanshah Aryamehr.
Long live Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi
Long live Reza Shah II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear IB, welcome back.
I believe, one reason that Siavash has indicated in his letter to our compatriots & the Whitehouse; is huge companies, like ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, Boeing, Halliburton, etc.etc, they have a vested interest in traitors like Amirahmadi, so they can do their business with the reagheads in Iran. Profit is the main reason, and nothing else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: Reza Pardisan

Re: Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978 (Score: 0)
by on Sunday, February 16 @ 22:48:52 CST

Some other History to go along with your Carter allegations. It was about OIL then as well.

by Dr. Norman Livergood

(excerpted from The New British Oil Imperialism)

" At the end of World War II, the British-Persian Oil Company controlled the vast oil fields in Iran.


In the early 1950s, Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, a satrap of the Rockefellers, negotiated a deal with Russian dictator Joseph Stalin to buy his oil--thus effectively stealing it from the Russian people. Russian oil was then sold on the world market at a much higher price than Stalin could get by marketing it himself, because few countries were willing to buy oil from Stalin.

Occidental Petroleum and Russia built two large pipelines, from the Russian oil fields down along both sides of the Caspian Sea, terminating in the old British-Persian--now Standard Oil--oil fields in Iran. For the next 45 years, Russia secretly sent its oil out through those pipelines and Standard Oil sold the oil on the world market at the "West Texas Crude" price by calling it Iranian oil. For almost fifty yeas most Americans have been using Russian oil in their cars.

Standard Oil refineries, which produce gasoline from crude oil, are located at large sea ports like San Francisco, Houston or Los Angeles, not near any of the large American oil fields. Most oil from the Persian Gulf is shipped in oil tankers to those large American refinery-ports.

In 1979, the Shah of Iran was thrown out by a British-backed coup and the long-time British asset, Ayatollah Khomeni, put into power. The flow of Russian oil through Iran suddenly stopped. Other oil pipelines were constructed through Iraq and Turkey. The Russian oil was now called OPEC Arabian-Middle Eastern oil and marketed at the even higher "spot market" price. So in 1979, in America and Europe, we suddenly experienced gasoline shortages and huge increases in the price of gasoline. Also in 1979 Standard Oil-Russian oil interests tried to secure an alternate, short, safe oil pipeline route from Russia through neighboring Afghanistan, but this only resulted in a prolonged war and the project was abandoned.

When the new British-controlled regime in Iran came into power, the Rockefeller-influenced U.S. government immediately threatened to seize $7.9 billion of Iranian assets located in the U.S. On November 4, 1979 Iranian "terrorists" captured and held hostage 65 Americans. Essentially, Standard Oil was being blackmailed by the hostage strategy. After lengthy negotiations, the Rockefeller-created President Jimmy Carter approved the electronic transfer of 7.9 billion dollars from U.S. accounts to the Iranian regime on January 20, 1981.

On Wednesday January 27, 1988, as announced in the Wall Street Journal, Standard Oil merged with British Petroleum. This actually represents Standard Oil's buyout of British Petroleum, the name of the newly merged company being BP-America. The Wall Street Journal did not see fit to mention worries about the world-wide predatory marketing practices of a deceptively titled Standard Oil regime.

During the last 13 years, BP-America has merged with, or controls, all of the old Standard Oil "mini-companies" which existed before the original breakup by the U.S. government in 1911. The new Standard Oil regime is now known as BP-AMOCO, and few people in the world realize what has happened. It's now possible to understand why British Prime Minister Blair has become the spokesman for the new wars against terrorism (actually the war for Caspian Sea oil)."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: "Ramin Etebar, MD" Mobile Alert
To: "Ramin Etebar, MD
Subject: Setting the Record Straight On Iran
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 02:03:04 -0700

Setting the Record Straight On Iran



Dear Editor:



Not long ago, Madeleine Albright, the then recently discovered Holocaust survivor Secretary of State, apologized to the anti-Semitic Islamic Republic of Iran, albeit under the guise of apologizing to the Iranian people, for the $47,000 of American involvement via a rogue agent in the 1953 events that led to the restoration of Constitutional Monarchy in Iran! Ms. Albright also was a member of the Carter Administration's National Security Council in 1978.

Her apology was so absurd and unbelievable, historically as well as politically, that it should be recorded in the annals of diplomacy on the same level as the "peace at hand" statement of Mr. Chamberlain.

I assume that Ms. Albright made this apology based on the oft unfounded and deeply exaggerated belief that Mr. Mossadegh, one of many reportedly popular prime ministers of Iran, was somehow against the Monarchy, ( a charge that Mr. Mossadegh vehemently denied during his public trial in Iran) and thus the Eisenhower Administration, in not supporting the "pro Mossadegh" forces (namely; Stalinist Bolsheviks, Islamic Fundamentalists, European Socialists, and Franco-Pan-Arab B'athists) was against the "popular" will of the Iranian people! There is not a well-informed soul that does not know that Mossadegh's downfall had nothing to do with the nationalization of oil (an event that everyone supported before Mossadegh even became Prime Minister), and everything to do with the fact that Mossadegh’s administration had become a def facto puppet of the Soviets.

The U.S. went to war with Japan and Nazi Germany against the popular will of both nations. Far more popular were Hitler and Hirohito than a washed up, eccentric and pseudo-intellectual aristocrat such as Mossadegh who insisted on being called "Of Royal Blood.” My first question is: Where is Madam Secretary's apology to the Germans and the Japanese? There are those on the American Left, who actually agree with the proposition that we should apologize to the Germans and the Japanese, and indeed even to the Soviets! After all, when Stalin died, the line to pay respect to "Papa" while he was lying in State was several days long. That is a far longer line than for any democratically elected leader's funeral in the West, since or before. Incidentally, a "pro-Mossadegh" demonstration in Iran turned out to be the largest pro Stalin and Soviet demonstration outside of Russian borders in Soviet history.

My other question to Madam Secretary is: what are you exactly apologizing for? Are you apologizing for the Truman administration's meddling in Iranian Affairs that led to the Monarch appointing Mossadegh as Prime Minister, or are you apologizing for Mossadegh's unlawful suspension of Parliament and the imposition of a totally illegal martial law "otherwise known as coups d'etat" ? Or, are you apologizing for the Iranian armed forces and the civilians finally taking the streets and government buildings back from the Bolsheviks and restoring the Parliament and the King? By way of analogy, was the Union involved in coups d'etat against the Confederates? General Lee was after all the most “popular” leader in the South, some say even more popular than Lincoln.

To understand Iran and her relations with the United States, one must first understand the role of American domestic party politics in Iranian affairs and vice versa. Today, the only apology the United States owes the Iranian people is for America’s shameful and blundering involvement in the backing of the Islamic Fundamentalist-Militant-Fascist Revolutionary Forces in 1979. Once the U.S. owns up to this most vile of all foreign policy faux pas, then we will see an outpouring of the Iranian people's sentiment in support of the U.S. never seen before in her modern history.



The current administration must also decide that a policy of "Behavior Modification" with murderers and fanatics is just as effective as Chamberlain's policy of appeasement toward Hitler. Either we want to be friends with Iran or we don't. If we do, the current regime must go. If we do not, let’s not waste time and just establish formal relations. We had formal relations with the Soviet block during the Cold War and they were no friends of the U.S. We have not had formal relations with the Cubans, the North Vietnamese, and Iran, and nothing has changed for the better. I vote for full relations, that will lead to regime change.
Said D. Jabbari
California


My only problem with the above statement is that, Mr. Jabbari needs to
define what a "full relation" with Iran means?? and does a "full relation" with Iran really leads to a regime change? I personally don't believe so.


blank


Last edited by blank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Blank,

Folks may wish to tap into a source slightly more authoratative and comprehensively researched than the independent analysis you've provided above.
This is just one chapter of the history of Iran included in the database..the link to the table of contents is included below.

Best,

oppie

-----------


A Country Study: Iran
Library of Congress Call Number DS254.5 .I742 1989



Iran
The Coming of the Revolution
By late 1976 and early 1977, it was evident that the Iranian economy was in trouble. The shah's attempt to use Iran's vastly expanded oil revenues after 1973 for an unrealistically ambitious industrial and construction program and a massive military buildup greatly strained Iran's human and institutional resources and caused severe economic and social dislocation. Widespread official corruption, rapid inflation, and a growing gap in incomes between the wealthier and the poorer strata of society fed public dissatisfaction.

In response, the government attempted to provide the working and middle classes with some immediate and tangible benefits of the country's new oil wealth. The government nationalized private secondary schools, declared that secondary education would be free for all Iranians, and started a free meal program in schools. It took over private community colleges and extended financial support to university students. It lowered income taxes, inaugurated an ambitious health insurance plan, and speeded up implementation of a program introduced in 1972, under which industrialists were required to sell 49 percent of the shares of their companies to their employees. The programs were badly implemented, however, and did not adequately compensate for the deteriorating economic position of the urban working class and those, who, like civil servants, were on fixed salaries. To deal with the disruptive effects of excessive spending, the government adopted policies that appeared threatening to the propertied classes and to bazaar, business, and industrial elements who had benefited from economic expansion and might have been expected to support the regime. For example, in an effort to bring down rents, municipalities were empowered to take over empty houses and apartments and to rent and administer them in place of the owners. In an effort to bring down prices in 1975 and 1976, the government declared a war on profiteers, arrested and fined thousands of shopkeepers and petty merchants, and sent two prominent industrialists into exile.

Moreover, by 1978 there were 60,000 foreigners in Iran--45,000 of them Americans--engaged in business or in military training and advisory missions. Combined with a superficial Westernization evident in dress, life styles, music, films, and television programs, this foreign presence tended to intensify the perception that the shah's modernization program was threatening the society's Islamic and Iranian cultural values and identity. Increasing political repression and the establishment of a one-party state in 1975 further alienated the educated classes.

The shah was aware of the rising resentment and dissatisfaction in the country and the increasing international concern about the suppression of basic freedoms in Iran. Organizations such as the International Council of Jurists and Amnesty International were drawing attention to mistreatment of political prisoners and violation of the rights of the accused in Iranian courts. More important, President Jimmy Carter, who took office in January 1977, was making an issue of human rights violations in countries with which the United States was associated. The shah, who had been pressed into a program of land reform and political liberalization by the Kennedy administration, was sensitive to possible new pressures from Washington.

Beginning in early 1977, the shah took a number of steps to meet both domestic and foreign criticism of Iran's human rights record. He released political prisoners and announced new regulations to protect the legal rights of civilians brought before military courts. In July the shah replaced Hoveyda, his prime minister of twelve years, with Jamshid Amuzegar, who had served for over a decade in various cabinet posts. Unfortunately for the shah, however, Amuzegar also became unpopular, as he attempted to slow the overheated economy with measures that, although generally thought necessary, triggered a downturn in employment and private sector profits that would later compound the government's problems.

Leaders of the moderate opposition, professional groups, and the intelligentsia took advantage of the shah's accommodations and the more helpful attitude of the Carter administration to organize and speak out. Many did so in the form of open letters addressed to prominent officials in which the writers demanded adherence to the constitution and restoration of basic freedoms. Lawyers, judges, university professors, and writers formed professional associations to press these demands. The National Front, the IFM, and other political groups resumed activity.

The protest movement took a new turn in January 1978, when a government-inspired article in Ettelaat, one of the country's leading newspapers, cast doubt on Khomeini's piety and suggested that he was a British agent. The article caused a scandal in the religious community. Senior clerics, including Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari, denounced the article. Seminary students took to the streets in Qom and clashed with police, and several demonstrators were killed. The Esfahan bazaar closed in protest. On February 18, mosque services and demonstrations were held in several cities to honor those killed in the Qom demonstrations. In Tabriz these demonstrations turned violent, and it was two days before order could be restored. By the summer, riots and antigovernment demonstrations had swept dozens of towns and cities. Shootings inevitably occurred, and deaths of protesters fueled public feeling against the regime.

The cycle of protests that began in Qom and Tabriz differed in nature, composition, and intent from the protests of the preceding year. The 1977 protests were primarily the work of middle-class intellectuals, lawyers, and secular politicians. They took the form of letters, resolutions, and declarations and were aimed at the restoration of constitutional rule. The protests that rocked Iranian cities in the first half of 1978, by contrast, were led by religious elements and were centered on mosques and religious events. They drew on traditional groups in the bazaar and among the urban working class for support. The protesters used a form of calculated violence to achieve their ends, attacking and destroying carefully selected targets that represented objectionable features of the regime: nightclubs and cinemas as symbols of moral corruption and the influence of Western culture; banks as symbols of economic exploitation; Rastakhiz (the party created by the shah in 1975 to run a one-party state) offices; and police stations as symbols of political repression. The protests, moreover, aimed at more fundamental change: in slogans and leaflets, the protesters attacked the shah and demanded his removal, and they depicted Khomeini as their leader and an Islamic state as their ideal. From his exile in Iraq, Khomeini continued to issue statements calling for further demonstrations, rejected any form of compromise with the regime, and called for the overthrow of the shah.

The government's position deteriorated further in August 1978, when more than 400 people died in a fire at the Rex Cinema in Abadan. Although evidence available after the Revolution suggested that the fire was deliberately started by religiously inclined students, the opposition carefully cultivated a widespread conviction that the fire was the work of SAVAK agents. Following the Rex Cinema fire, the shah removed Amuzegar and named Jafar Sharif-Emami prime minister. Sharif-Emami, a former minister and prime minister and a trusted royalist, had for many years served as president of the Senate. The new prime minister adopted a policy of conciliation. He eased press controls and permitted more open debate in the Majlis. He released a number of imprisoned clerics, revoked the imperial calendar, closed gambling casinos, and obtained from the shah the dismissal from court and public office of members of the Bahai religion, a sect to which the clerics strongly objected (see Non-Muslim Minorities , ch. 2). These measures, however, did not quell public protests. On September 4, more than 100,000 took part in the public prayers to mark the end of Ramazan, the Muslim fasting month. The ceremony became an occasion for antigovernment demonstrations that continued for the next two days, growing larger and more radical in composition and in the slogans of the participants. The government declared martial law in Tehran and eleven other cities on the night of September 7-8, 1978. The next day, troops fired into a crowd of demonstrators at Tehran's Jaleh Square. A large number of protesters, certainly many more than the official figure of eighty-seven, were killed. The Jaleh Square shooting came to be known as "Black Friday." It considerably radicalized the opposition movement and made compromise with the regime, even by the moderates, less likely. In October the Iraqi authorities, unable to persuade Khomeini to refrain from further political activity, expelled him from the country. Khomeini went to France and established his headquarters at Neauphle-le-Château, outside Paris. Khomeini's arrival in France provided new impetus to the revolutionary movement. It gave Khomeini and his movement exposure in the world press and media. It made possible easy telephone communication with lieutenants in Tehran and other Iranian cities, thus permitting better coordination of the opposition movement. It allowed Iranian political and religious leaders, who were cut off from Khomeini while he was in Iraq, to visit him for direct consultations. One of these visitors was National Front leader Karim Sanjabi. After a meeting with Khomeini early in November 1978, Sanjabi issued a three-point statement that for the first time committed the National Front to the Khomeini demand for the deposition of the shah and the establishment of a government that would be "democratic and Islamic."

Scattered strikes had occurred in a few private sector and government industries between June and August 1978. Beginning in September, workers in the public sector began to go on strike on a large scale. When the demands of strikers for improved salary and working benefits were quickly met by the Sharif-Emami government, oil workers and civil servants made demands for changes in the political system. The unavailability of fuel oil and freight transport and shortages of raw materials resulting from a customs strike led to the shutting down of most private sector industries in November.

On November 5, 1978, after violent demonstrations in Tehran, the shah replaced Sharif-Emami with General Gholam-Reza Azhari, commander of the Imperial Guard. The shah, addressing the nation for the first time in many months, declared he had heard the people's "revolutionary message," promised to correct past mistakes, and urged a period of quiet and order so that the government could undertake the necessary reforms. Presumably to placate public opinion, the shah allowed the arrest of 132 former leaders and government officials, including former Prime Minister Hoveyda, a former chief of SAVAK, and several former cabinet ministers. He also ordered the release of more than 1,000 political prisoners, including a Khomeini associate, Ayatollah Hosain Ali Montazeri.

The appointment of a government dominated by the military brought about some short-lived abatement in the strike fever, and oil production improved. Khomeini dismissed the shah's promises as worthless, however, and called for continued protests. The Azhari government did not, as expected, use coercion to bring striking government workers back to work. The strikes resumed, virtually shutting down the government, and clashes between demonstrators and troops became a daily occurrence. On December 9 and 10, 1978, in the largest antigovernment demonstrations in a year, several hundred thousand persons participated in marches in Tehran and the provinces to mark Moharram, the month in which Shia mourning occurs.

In December 1978, the shah finally began exploratory talks with members of the moderate opposition. Discussions with Karim Sanjabi proved unfruitful: the National Front leader was bound by his agreement with Khomeini. At the end of December another National Front leader, Shapour Bakhtiar, agreed to form a government on condition the shah leave the country. Bakhtiar secured a vote of confidence from the two houses of the Majlis on January 3, 1979, and presented his cabinet to the shah three days later. The shah, announcing he was going abroad for a short holiday, left the country on January 16, 1979. As his aircraft took off, celebrations broke out across the country.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/irtoc.html#ir0029
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is obvious who ever has "researched" and written the above article is not Iranian, or very much out of touch with what really happened in Iran, or it was written with the purpose of deliberate disinformation.
Except for some of the paragraphs in there, Unintentionally, confirms the content of other articles posted here, that how the Brits and Carter helped set fuel to the fire of this bloody revolution.


Last edited by blank on Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is obvious who ever has "researched" and written the above article is not Iranian, or very much out of touch with what really happened in Iran, or it was written with the purpose of deliberate disinformation.



I think you'll find that in the table of contents there is information on how information was gathered and the collective research done from multiple sources.

How then are the events sited in cronological order above in any way "out of touch" with events as they occured, and what specifically do you reference as "deliberate disinformation" in the text?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Except for some of the paragraphs in there, Unintentionally, confirms the content of other articles posted here, that how the Brits and Carter helped set fuel to the fire of this bloody revolution.


Dear Blank,

Let me address your edited addition to your post, as you have implied and expressly stated concious intent on the part of the Library of Congress of "deliberate disinformation" and now state "unintentional confirmation" in some aspects of the articles you posted.

First, Facts are facts, interpretation of facts is a different matter....one as such can take a fact and twist it to suit their fancy, as we both experienced this with "Artist" on SMCCDI a few years back....LOOL! I had a fair bit of fun with him on many occasion shoving the truth in his face...now, what I'm looking for is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....not spin or ideological interpretation of facts.

As you know I am an honest researcher and willing to let chips fall where they may as to what truth reveals of history. So in that sence, you basicly (as does everyone else) have an opportunity here to pick apart line by line the synopsis of Iranian history as cross checked and published by the Library of Congress.

This data base by the way is used as a research tool by many academics, institutions of higher learning, and by congressional mandate required to be factually accurate in its publications, dispassionate in any conclusions of causaulogy in description of events and the elements that factored into events as they unfolded.

Now this is not to say that a synopsis is a complete history, as one may rightly state that a whole encyclopedic work would be needed to include every single nuance and factor that contributed to this one specific period in Iranian history. Nor is it inclusive of a broad context of regional and international events such as the Cold-war dynamics taking place globally at that time...(which also are inportant to a full and comprehensive understanding).

In stating this, it has been my experience and witnessed on many occasion that in certain ways Iranians view history as "Iran focused"...in other words, that elements that may have contributed to your history are sometimes overlooked due to the fact that they are global in scope , or a matter of internal dynamics of other nations that are not having anything to do with Iran.

But I would say that in taking an honest and comprehensive approach, events like America's withdraw from Vietnam, Watergate and the resignation of a US president, Radical change in US public opinion toward US foreign policy, philosophical differences between democrat and republican administrations and Congressional make-up, constituted an upheaval in my country that also indirectly factor into events of that era.

As well, recent documents de-classified indicate that in 1979 the US and Russia were very, very close to global nuclear war. So close in fact that nothing was public (as it was in the Cuban missile crisis).

Now I also know that many look to one specific factor to point to that they may say "This is why the Mullahs run Iran today." when in fact the situation on the ground was so complex and interdependant that no one thing can be accurately pointed to as "the cause" . This has been I think a very painful part of Iranian history in general, and the emotional coloring of it factors into today's interpretation of it as well by many Iranians.

If what I'm saying here is innaccurate or "deliberate disinformation" than by all means you have the opportunity to correct my understanding or misunderstanding....or accuse me if you can find legitimate cause to do so.

But innuendo without facts to back it up with Blank are no more honest an approach that what the mullah-loving "Artist" on SMCCDI was doing when we had so much fun giving him hell for it.

I don't claim to be an expert in Iranian history, and I'm here to learn as much as I can, and all I want are "just the facts...man."

Take care,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:30 am    Post subject: Ramsey Clark and company apparently think Iranians are too Reply with quote

To: info@internationalanswer.org, answerla@answerla.org, answer@answersf.org, nyc@internationalanswer.org, answer@chicagoanswer.net
Subject: FW: Ramsey Clark and company apparently think Iranians are too stupid to think for themselves!
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:31:51 +0200

Go to hell all of you addressees.

We do not need your help or even sympathy especially from that murderer Ramsey Clark who is responsible for implanting KHOMEINI in our country with the result that for the last 27 years the Iranians are massacred by Islamic Republic of Iran.

If one day the justice is going to be served, this traitor to humanity (Ramsey Clark) should stand in front of World Tribunal for mass murder along with his infamous boss that supper idiot Jimmy Carter.

You good doers have done enough harm to us Iranians, get lost.

H. Hakimi,

Norway



______________________________________________________
Hi Everyone,

The group International Action Center run the sinister Saddam-defending, Milosevic-loving Ramsey Clark are at it again. Clark who was one of the main forces behind Khomeini's takeover of Iran has, for the last 27 years, been pulling strings and meddling in the Iranian freedom movement in the background. Now this cultural imperialist plutocrat and his gang of kitchen-table politician flunkies who hate Bush, used Iraq and now Iran - not because they care about people in our part of the world - but as a tool for the promotion of their own outdated and inane agenda.

Their new rhetoric is HANDS OFF IRAN...as if we Iranians cannot think for ourselves and require gangs of wound up robots who know nothing about our part of the world and have no sense of patriotism, to get out on the streets on our behalf.

Please distribute this info and ask everyone e-mail these bullies at: info@internationalanswer.org ; answerla@answerla.org ; answer@answersf.org; nyc@internationalanswer.org ; answer@chicagoanswer.net to tell them to GET THEIR HANDS OFF OF IRAN!


Thanks.

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group