Still feeling the loss of the Shah
By: JOSEPH CRISP
February
2007. (This Is A Must)
Although one would hardly have known it from
the mainstream media, recently a few with good memories marked the anniversary
of the official end of the Iranian monarchy and the birth of the Islamic
Republic of Iran. The date was February 11, 1979 and His Majesty Mohammad Reza
Pahlavi, the King of kings and Light of the Aryans of Iran had already left
the country a month before. The final end came as a result of a serious
mistake by Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar: that the Ayatollah Khomeini and
his fanatical followers were people who could be reasoned with and participate
in fair elections. As the world was soon to know, any
trace of moderation and reasonability in Iranian politics had left with the
Shah in January. The effort to be democratic died a violent death
at the hands of the Ayatollah's radical Islamic Revolutionary guerillas.
Today, the loss of the Shah is not much remembered, mostly because the
terrorism and violent rhetoric of the Islamic republic that succeeded him has
so over-shadowed his relatively peaceful reign.
The end of the monarchy in Iran remains a pivotal event in the
history of central Asia and even the world. Just as Hitler ascended to power
in the vacancy left by the houses of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern, as Lenin
filled the void left by the martyred Tsar Nicholas II or how Chairman Mao
proclaimed his victory over the gates of the vacated Forbidden City,
the loss of the Shah meant the chance of a lifetime for
the fanatics of Iran. For the first time in modern history Islamic terrorists
had won a country, gained a safe haven and a base of operations for their
violent agenda of global jihad and international Islamic revolution. In the
United States we should also remember the role of President Jimmy Carter in,
innocently we hope, allowing this to come about rather than giving the Shah
the means to defend his state and his government from these people.
It is also worth remembering that when the Russian Revolution first overthrew
the Tsar the U.S. Congress applauded the Russians for putting an end to
imperial autocracy, or how the removal of the German Kaiser and the
dissolution of the Hapsburg Empire were made conditions of peace to end World
War I or how so many Americans applauded the Chinese for overthrowing their
child Emperor as finally "growing up" and embracing republicanism over their
ancient monarchy. It makes one wonder when people will ever learn?
Of course, it never seems as bad at the time. Hitler did not take
over from 'Kaiser Bill' immediately; first there was the Weimar republic. The
Bolsheviks did not actually overthrow the Tsar themselves but seized power
later from the more moderate government that went before them. Nor was it Mao
and the Communists who actually brought about the downfall of the "Lord of
10,000 Years" in China but rather beat the nationalists who had after a long
and bloody civil war -the worst in history actually. So, what then is the
connection between the various monarchs and the extremists who eventually came
to power once they were gone? It reminds me of something Britain's King George
III once said in relation to America, "Sometimes one must call in bad men to
govern bad men". We should not be so easily taken in by the seemingly innocent
governments which are the first to succeed a fallen monarch. The point is that
the Weimar republic did not have the strength to resist someone like Hitler; a
very dynamic, powerful and successful campaigner and politician lets not
forget. Nor did the fragile remains of Austria, stripped of her empire, have
the power to resist the anschluss,
despite the heroic efforts of Dollfuss and Schuschnigg. The provisional
government could not stop the Bolsheviks from taking over, but all things
being equal, the Tsar could have. All things being equal, the Shah could have
stopped the Islamic Revolutionaries that Bakhtiar was unable to.
Yes, everyone at the time said that the Tsar was autocrat, which he
was, and that the bombastic Kaiser had far too much power in the old German
constitution: which he did. The same things were said of the Shah; that he was
an absolutist, that he was autocratic and in truth he was autocratic, but that
is exactly why he could have saved the situation. Prior to the rebirth of Iran
as terrorist state, the Shah had attracted a great deal of criticism for his
unheard of policies, handed down from on high as it were.
But what were these policies that the Ayatollah and his
followers considered so outrageous? Well, to name just a few, he encouraged
education, for both men
and
women! He was friendly with the United States and even the State of Israel!
Why the oppressive old tyrant even let girls get away with wearing miniskirts,
walking around with their heads uncovered and, most shocking of all, let them
vote! True, he could be hard on his enemies. But who were these enemies? For
the most part they were either Communists in league with the Soviet Union or
Islamic terrorists. Personally, I have no problem with what the Shah did to
those people than I do with much more tame discomfort being inflicted at
Guantanamo Bay. Considering all of this, anyone who would
categorize Iran under the Shah as some sort of horrible, wicked tyranny, in my
view, clearly has some "issues" and should probably not be allowed to operate
heavy machinery.
Yet, today, because the liberal west
suddenly decided that the Shah was "not good enough" we turned our back on
him, he was overthrown and we have been plagued by terrorism sponsored by the
Islamic Republic ever since and now even face the possibility of war to keep
nuclear weapons out of the hands of these fanatics. There seems to
be a moral arrogance running rampant now that keeps us from clearly seeing
where the most obvious danger lies. It reminds me of the great General Douglas
MacArthur saying that even if Chiang Kai-shek had horns and a tail he should
be supported as long as he is anti-communist and we can reform him later. The
General's advice was not taken and we got the People's Republic of China in
control of the mainland with satellites in Korea and Indochina. The same thing
was said about President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam; that he was too
autocratic, monarchical and rigid. Ultimately, Kennedy turned against him and
none of the successive South Vietnamese governments had the strength to endure
and the communist cause finally won.
Disasters such as these, and the difficult decisions we face now and
have faced in the past are always more easily avoided than they are dealt
with. It is too late to avoid difficulty with Iran but we should learn from
past mistakes and try to correct them without making the same mistakes again.
We must stop looking at things through the lense of our own history rather
than that of the country in question and stop expecting perfection and being
unwilling to settle for anything less. In every case such as this someone will
always ask, "who is the _____ George Washington?" Well, the fact is, George
Washington was not perfect and no foreign leader from any country ever will be
either. As far as Iran is concerned, the choice should be obvious. Things were
better for Iran and better for us when there was a Shah and in all the years
of the Islamic Republic the Crown Prince has been the most prominent and the
most steady and reasonable voice for change. If we want a free, modern Iran
that is friendly rather than confrontational, seeing the Crown Prince on his
late father's throne would not be a bad way to start.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Still Feeling the Loss of the Shah
IRAN REFLECTS ON THE
BENEFITS OF THE MONARCHY
Dear Mr.
Crisp II;
I am
an Iranian monarchist and I have dedicated my life to the cause
of
liberty in Iran.
I
also want justice for our late Shahanshah who was one of the
greatest and most noble men in the history of mankind. Our King
transformed Iran and he loved Iran more than anything in his life.
No
one knew that His Late Majesty's departure would bring catastrophe
to
millions of Iranians. Sadly the Shahanshah was punished by the
British and Americans who did not value a strong, peaceful and
progressive pro-western Iran.
July
27th 2007 is the 27th anniversary of his death. We Iranians will
never
get over his death. We remember him every day.
I saw
your wonderful and heart-warming article which was published
in
the July issue of the Monarchy under a different title. I would like to
thank
you for your decency and good work.
Although I am a monarchist but I feel disgusted to see the way the
Brits
treated him and the way they continue to rubbish our benevolent
King.
28 years after his death, the British do not stop their lies and
nastiness towards him. The British Government is being the prime
supporter of the terrorist regime in Iran. Recently Lord Trainman of the
British Foreign Office said that :
"Britain will oppose regime change in
Iran".
See link one below about Treisman.[1]:
We
Iranians will not forget nor forgive Britain for their contribution in
creating and supporting the Mullahs regime.
Via
my E-mail lists, I publish clips and news about the Mullahs crimes
which cannot be reported by the British media. I intend to publish your
article and indeed I will forward it to H.I.M. Empress Farah Pahlavi the
Shahbanou of Iran.
With
kind regards and thank you for your interest.
Mohammad-Reza
Pardisan, London.
[1]: Please see my letter to Lord Treisman,
April 10, 2007
To
understand what has happened in Iran please read the following books:
A- Dr.
Houshang Nahavandi was a senior politician in
Iran. He was
the
Minister of
housing in the 60's. The head of the Pahlavi University
in
Shiraz than the head of the Tehran University. Later he was private
secretary to H.I.M. Empress
Farah Of Iran.
His second book
"The Clash
of Ambitions"
is about to be published
soon. In it he reveals more of the
untold truth about western betrayal of the Shah
of Iran.
