It's important to not focus too much on that website - although it is telling of a strong pulse in the US-Israeli mainstream: anti-Iranian feelings run high. I do concur with Dr. Babak Rezvani of Holland on the following point:
the more rational people still are uneasy with Iran. Because it is a large, populous country with resources. Which can act as a main global player and in any case is a natural regional leader. it is GEOPOLITICALLY detrimental to their interests.
The western forces who supported Khomeini did so hoping that a fanatic religious theocracy would destroy Iran's culture, history and common identity by forcing the population to become pan-Arabo-Islamists. This fully documented by Dreyfus & Llemarc (1979) and as well as Engdahl (2003).
The decision to remove the Shah was taken in 1973 (I would argue that it was as early as the Matteo affair of the 1960s) when the decision was taken by petroleum conglomorates, CFR and the Trilateral Commission to remove the Shah. The reason is the same as Dr. Rezvani explains it:
(1) Iran was rapidly becoming an advanced industrial, economic, technological giant
TODAY: Iran's arms industry has become nearly self-sufficient and there have been strides within Iran in a number of medical and technical centres. I DO NOT support the IRI and see them as pan-Islamic fanatics, however the PEOPLE of Iran are extremely ingenious - and this (believe me) is seen as an economic threat to the "lobbies". I have numerous references that document how a number of western diplomats such as George Ball hated the Shah and wanted him removed because he and his "allies" felt that Iran "should remain a third-world country".
George Ball (left) and President Lyndon Johnson (right)
(2) The Shah was demanding higher and higher prices for oil revenues
(3) Iran was projecting itself into the Near east economically and politically - this was unacceptable to the Anglo-Dutch petroleum consortiums who see the Persian Gulf as their lifeline.
I recall as a boy the bitter and racist cartoons in the western papers of how "dangerous" and "threatening" Iran was becoming to "world-stability". My father worked as a career-diplomat for the Shah-regime for 30 years.
This sounds familiar to the shrills we hear today: the Iran "nuclear threat". I fully share deep worries of a fanatic such as Ahmadi-Nejad (along with his anti-Israel rhetoric) wielding nuclear weapons - But how about Pakistan? They have a huge nuclear arsenal, the country's populace is extremely anti-western and Palistan intelligence is the creator of the Taliban and has supported Al-Qaida (and some say that this is continuing). Dr. Choussedevsky of Ottawa University has written a number of books and articles on these issues - interesting how we do not hear of this is major journalistic outlets.
While I fully concur that corruption-nepotism was rampant in the Shah's era, as well as serious human rights violations, etc. the excuses that were used to sow chaos within Iran and to oust that regime were the same ones we are now hearing today: "Human Rights". Only now, we hear "Human Rights" with a new twist: "Human Rights for Iran's Minorities". The same mantra was used by the former Soviet Union against Iran.
As I noted before, the petroleum conglomorates and the neo-cons, etc. care little for the Iranian people and least of all for "Human Rights".
Remmember that the assault on Iran's integrity has been in full swing since the 1979 revolution:
(1) the promotion of "academic" venues for terms such as "Arabian Gulf", "South Azarbaijan", "Al-Ahwaz", etc.
(2) The mobilization of the EU, UN and other "Human Rights" venues to (a) fabricate and (b) internationalize the so-called "plight of Iran's minorities".
We are entering a dangerous slippery slope. - we are starting to resemble the Ottoman Empire in 1914 as well as post-Tito Yugoslavia. Iran too has a dangerous fanatic president (recall Milosevic) who wishes to sacrifice Iran for "Felesteen e Aziz".
There is also little comprehension within Iranians (both inside Iran and within the diaspora) of how much intent there is to dismember Iran for economic reasons (translation: petroleum). The fact is that Ahmadi-Nejad and the IRI are giving these dynamics greater excuse and impetus. Yes, I do not like the IRI at all, however we need to take notice of the forces that have been at work even during the time of the Shah (and even Reza Shah).
Not to repeat what I say and what Dr. Rezvani says: the forces at work care little for who sits in Tehran. It is Iran and its integrity that they do not like.
Once again, I have humble mentioned these things in the PART VI of my humble on-line book:
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/AZPartVI.html
The media is now repeating a dangerous mantra:
Iran is a menace to the world - we must "remove" that threat.
Note that we NEVER hear "Islamic Republic" - we always hear "Iran". Perhaps the time has come for all of us to awaken from our complacence and never-ending pettiness.
the more rational people still are uneasy with Iran. Because it is a large, populous country with resources. Which can act as a main global player and in any case is a natural regional leader. it is GEOPOLITICALLY detrimental to their interests.
The western forces who supported Khomeini did so hoping that a fanatic religious theocracy would destroy Iran's culture, history and common identity by forcing the population to become pan-Arabo-Islamists. This fully documented by Dreyfus & Llemarc (1979) and as well as Engdahl (2003).
The decision to remove the Shah was taken in 1973 (I would argue that it was as early as the Matteo affair of the 1960s) when the decision was taken by petroleum conglomorates, CFR and the Trilateral Commission to remove the Shah. The reason is the same as Dr. Rezvani explains it:
(1) Iran was rapidly becoming an advanced industrial, economic, technological giant
TODAY: Iran's arms industry has become nearly self-sufficient and there have been strides within Iran in a number of medical and technical centres. I DO NOT support the IRI and see them as pan-Islamic fanatics, however the PEOPLE of Iran are extremely ingenious - and this (believe me) is seen as an economic threat to the "lobbies". I have numerous references that document how a number of western diplomats such as George Ball hated the Shah and wanted him removed because he and his "allies" felt that Iran "should remain a third-world country".
George Ball (left) and President Lyndon Johnson (right)
(2) The Shah was demanding higher and higher prices for oil revenues
(3) Iran was projecting itself into the Near east economically and politically - this was unacceptable to the Anglo-Dutch petroleum consortiums who see the Persian Gulf as their lifeline.
I recall as a boy the bitter and racist cartoons in the western papers of how "dangerous" and "threatening" Iran was becoming to "world-stability". My father worked as a career-diplomat for the Shah-regime for 30 years.
This sounds familiar to the shrills we hear today: the Iran "nuclear threat". I fully share deep worries of a fanatic such as Ahmadi-Nejad (along with his anti-Israel rhetoric) wielding nuclear weapons - But how about Pakistan? They have a huge nuclear arsenal, the country's populace is extremely anti-western and Palistan intelligence is the creator of the Taliban and has supported Al-Qaida (and some say that this is continuing). Dr. Choussedevsky of Ottawa University has written a number of books and articles on these issues - interesting how we do not hear of this is major journalistic outlets.
While I fully concur that corruption-nepotism was rampant in the Shah's era, as well as serious human rights violations, etc. the excuses that were used to sow chaos within Iran and to oust that regime were the same ones we are now hearing today: "Human Rights". Only now, we hear "Human Rights" with a new twist: "Human Rights for Iran's Minorities". The same mantra was used by the former Soviet Union against Iran.
As I noted before, the petroleum conglomorates and the neo-cons, etc. care little for the Iranian people and least of all for "Human Rights".
Remmember that the assault on Iran's integrity has been in full swing since the 1979 revolution:
(1) the promotion of "academic" venues for terms such as "Arabian Gulf", "South Azarbaijan", "Al-Ahwaz", etc.
(2) The mobilization of the EU, UN and other "Human Rights" venues to (a) fabricate and (b) internationalize the so-called "plight of Iran's minorities".
We are entering a dangerous slippery slope. - we are starting to resemble the Ottoman Empire in 1914 as well as post-Tito Yugoslavia. Iran too has a dangerous fanatic president (recall Milosevic) who wishes to sacrifice Iran for "Felesteen e Aziz".
There is also little comprehension within Iranians (both inside Iran and within the diaspora) of how much intent there is to dismember Iran for economic reasons (translation: petroleum). The fact is that Ahmadi-Nejad and the IRI are giving these dynamics greater excuse and impetus. Yes, I do not like the IRI at all, however we need to take notice of the forces that have been at work even during the time of the Shah (and even Reza Shah).
Not to repeat what I say and what Dr. Rezvani says: the forces at work care little for who sits in Tehran. It is Iran and its integrity that they do not like.
Once again, I have humble mentioned these things in the PART VI of my humble on-line book:
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/AZPartVI.html
The media is now repeating a dangerous mantra:
Iran is a menace to the world - we must "remove" that threat.
Note that we NEVER hear "Islamic Republic" - we always hear "Iran". Perhaps the time has come for all of us to awaken from our complacence and never-ending pettiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment