Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I would never take something that the BBC says to the heart nor something that the CIA chooses to declassify to the public. They both have their agendas and they can both go to hell.

Either way, IF Ayatollah Khomeini used the US in order to help him get rid of the shah, I see not problem with that. The US was the ones who installed the shah in the first place after the former prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh decided to nationalize the Iranian oil industry that was up until that point owned by the brittish BP (Operation AJAX).

So if the shah of iran had become a bit too self confident and did not listen as much as he did before (like the dog saddam or gaddafi, etc), then I do not see it unlikely that they would overthrow him as well in their own interest. If what the BBC says is true, then Ayatollah Khomeini used the US against themselves which was very smart, since that would mean the US helped him create the biggest enemy of the US on the planet in modern time.

Either way, the islamic republic of Iran was created and it became and still is the strong hold of shia Islam and the single most powerful shia nation in the world.

@DigitalUmmah

I can never understand what problem you have with Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini, I think it boils down into your sense of national pride, but you should see yourself as a shia before you see yourself as a pakistani.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

other hand, their leader(s) dont seem to have a problem with making deals with the USA behind their backs.

You could look at it the other way. Assuming the story is true ... dealing with the U.S. neutralises military opposition to the Revolution, avoids civil war and minimises Iranian civilian casualties as a result.

The only way the U.S. can then respond and thereby demonstrate its political weakness, is to start a war (via its proxy Saddam).

Even worse is yet to come for the United States, since a decade later, the U.S. has to intervene directly and get rid of Saddam. As they do so they end up with Iraqi governments favourable to Iran.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

I can never understand what problem you have with Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini, I think it boils down into your sense of national pride, but you should see yourself as a shia before you see yourself as a pakistani.

well you are wrong if you think that then, aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

You could look at it the other way. Assuming the story is true ... dealing with the U.S. neutralises military opposition to the Revolution, avoids civil war and minimises Iranian civilian casualties as a result

that's fine by me. I don't have any issues with any nation state having diplomatic ties with another nation state.

as you yourself have seen in this thread - as soon as you try bringing that up, IRI zealots immediately start talking about freemasons and the illuminati as proof why it could never happen. then people like me get annoyed and everything just goes into a death spiral after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/06/2016 at 1:59 AM, Hidaren said:

 Iran will never work with USA because USA won't miss a chance to harm Iran, while we know they will stab us if we co-operate with them, why should we even try it? Iran and USA will never co-operate as you say, Khomeini(ra) said 4 decades ago:" We got rid of Shah but we will not get rid of US lovers soon." It is undeniable that some are here who love USA but they are almost done. 

So Iran wont ever work with the USA, but will help the US President in the most public way possible, by freeing the hostages at such a time that it couldn't be possible to boost his image and PR any more?

On 04/06/2016 at 1:59 AM, Hidaren said:

Iran and USA are against each other in their very existence, the earth is not big enough for both of the ideologies and soon we will have the Islamic Republic of America or the secular Iran. But as we learned from history, the death of liberalism will be death of the most devoted country to it, USA will become the second Soviet Union which was destroyed by the destruction of commonism, and based on what American military, economical, academic and .... experts say: the destruction of the US has already begun.

people have been saying that since 1776, and yet, here we are. 

On 04/06/2016 at 1:59 AM, Hidaren said:

Watch 4 horsemen documentary to know how.

no. 

On 04/06/2016 at 1:59 AM, Hidaren said:

One thing more :D It is not "Marj bar USA" it is :"Marg bar USA" 

they say the same thing, [edited out]

Edited by starlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DigitalUmmah

You did not really address what I wrote in my earlier post, only the question that I asked you and that one you answered with bad attitude and rudely.

Then you continue by insulting you other brother in the posts to follow.

I dont understand why you would enter a discussion with someone regarding a topic if you know you will not be able to control yourself and insult the other person as a result.

Anyways, I hope iA you will become more calmer in the future and not get angry so quickly. Khoda hafez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam and Ramadhan Mubarak;

I took a course on lran taught by a Farsi specialist whose work concentrated on the theology of the ayatollahs. He was on the periphery of the Paris meetings and such. That writ:

What is in the OP article is what we had in the class almost 40 years ago.

There was also a half page newspaper article in January-February 1979 time frame about Gen. Huyser's travels to lran. The article concentrated on the "why is he there?". [l found this a few years ago as my parents had cut it out and kept it.] ln class, it was said Huyser was there to make sure the pro-Shah lranian military understood they will have no support from the US for a coup. This also limited the veracity of the military purge later, which the US exercised influence operations.

Now l figure the Iranian readers will not agree with this next part, but: As US actions and policy was always formed in the anti-Communist Cold War and the US knew about the Tudeheen(oil communists) and MEK (who tried to murder all the ayatollahs), the US priority at this time was to prevent a civil war. A 'sub-routine' of this was to forement instability in Afghnaistan which led to the Soviet invasion in December 1979. A priority was to "protect" the ayatollahs, especially Khomenei (for several reasons, such as "he was known" to the US, had extensive popular support, sufficient evaluative information from the US's Muslim Students Association which was organizing against the Shah, etc). This last part, protection, is how Huyser got selected to go to Iran rather than the 'usual' messengers: as commander of the EUCOM airlift, he also arranged Khomenei's transportation because the plane would have onboard a US pilot which the Soviets were informed about. This way, if the Soviets or their agents did anything to the plane, the US would automatically respond. [Yes, l know an lranian pilot was onboard, l have seen his interview, but whether he actually flew the plane depends on the source cited.]

That is a couple of points. l will add this story:

The students took over the US embassy in April '79. Then left after some negotiations. But in November, 1979, the Tudeheen took over the embassy again while Khomenei was in Qom meeting with other ayatollahs. As soon as the communists did this, the USArmy's 97Cs in lran (covert operators) started buying up every gun they could and sent many into Qom to protect the ayatollahs and a few guns to in-Tehran locations. Things stabilized. The Tudeheen did not leave the embassy as usual, Khomenei then sent his son back to Tehran on Friday to gain release of the embassy. At this time, the US started another policy -when the release was arranged. The US people in the field were cut-off from instructions. The fall-on-your-rubber-sword story that National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, "not liking" Carter's policy on Poland, withheld information from Pres. Carter; so Carter didn't act as agreed. The public result being "Carter thought Khomenei was trying to screw-him and Khomenei thought the same about Carter". And the "Hostage Crisis" began and went on for 444 days.

I hope we all live long enough get all the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×