I saw an advertisement, entitled “In Memory of My Brother, MOHAMMAD REZA PAHLAVI, The Late Shahanshah of Iran” in the International Herald Tribune on July 27. It was the 25th anniversary of the passing away of the Shahanshah. Achraf Pahlavi, the sister of the late king of Iran, placed this advertisement.
She lauds rapid modernization in the White Revolution during the Pahlavi regime, and presents critical viewpoints to current theocracy.
Think again. The most detrimental factor in the Middle East is not the Palestine conflict but the Iranian Revolution. While the former is an ethnic clash between Jewish and Palestinians, the latter has lead to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism allover the Middle East.
The result? First, it is Iranian people themselves who suffer from repressive regime, dominated by archaic-brained mullahs. Some people may say the Pahlavi monarchy was repressive as well. But remember! Pahlavi shahs were Kemalists. The fundamental value of this ideology is modernization and enlightenment by throwing away outmoded Islamism, destroying mediaeval systems of exploitation, providing good education to the people, and so forth. Kemal Ataturk of Turkey and Pahlavi shahs of Iran may have taken some oppressive policies. But these approaches are necessary evils for the process of rapid modernization. This is completely different from theocratic oppression. In the Islamic regime, people expect little modernization and enlightenment.
In addition, the Islamic autocracy causes negative impacts throughout the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalism has become invigorated since then, anti-Western and anti-Jewish feeling has become intensified. In other words, no Iranian revolution means no Al Qaeda.
Judging from the balance of power in this region, it is evident. Saddam Hussein became increasingly megalomaniac, after the fall of shah. Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to fill the power vacuum. Consequence? I can list up too many clashes, including the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, 9-11, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War.
Why people blame too much on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, while paying little attention to negative consequences of the Iranian Revolution. In Palestine, there are easy target to accuse. Just name them. US-Israeli relations, Jewish lobbies, and anything related to Jewish are blamed.
We need to understand what the real cause of Middle East instability is. People overestimate Palestine, and underestimate Iran.
19 comments:
Good job, Shah.
Thank you.
Shah,
Excellent work! I believe that Kenneth Timmerman has recently written a book about the threat from Iran. Do I have the right author here?
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was an important event. The repercussions are still in play, today.
Shah Alexander;
thanx, but kemalism is not a real good thing, it resulted in heavy repression of ethnic minorities. shah was no good, the mollahs are no good, but i believe there had to be revolution, and iranian people had to face the sharia law for the last time in order for us to move on to secularism. the islamic revolution had some real bad consequences for iran, but for other countries, UAE, turkey, saudi arabia, etc. it was a god given gift, because the west started investing in them, and making them richer.
Always on Watch,
I will check the book and the author. Iran and North Korea are expected to be the top targets for the next regime change. I would like to talk about this issue in the near future.
Alborz,
Ethnic minorities have different viewpoints. Those who are abroad tend to judge the country from modernization and prosperity. As you say, there are some negative aspects in Kemalism.
Finally, I hope that the day will come when you don't have to worry about internet censorship.
I oppose any regime change on iran, only a peacefull transition by the people of iran alone free from foreign interference and influence will bring iran democracy and freedom. we dont need no political or material support from west, all they do is make things worse.
Shah,
The book I mentioned is by Kenneth Timmerman and is his most recent publication, I believe. If I haven't missed the deadline, my reserved copy is awaiting me at my public library. But with all this blogging going on, I don't know when I'll have time to read it.
BTW, have you ever read that there is no such thing as "Palestinians"? That is to say the term itself is a misnomer. I'll revisit here to see if you're interested in the article I saw on that topic--if I can find the article, that is. I saw it some time back.
Forgive me if I'm repeating myself here....I read that the reason for the Muslim push to fully occupy Jerusalem is that Mohammed dreamed that he had visited there. I dream of being in Maui, but that doesn't mean that I own the island.
Shah,
The US intervened in Iran to depose the democratically-elected goverment (Mohammad Mossadegh) and replace it with the Shah's goverment, and that is why we have mullahs today. What does this prove? Only that intervention produces extremism.
Secondly, ME instability, if indeed you mean al-Qaeda and extremism, is a product of Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Did you hear about the recent al-Qaeda video? In it the number two man of al-Qaeda said that 7/7 was "over Iraq". Iran has little to do with the equation.
...and you are flat-out wrong to say, "no Iranian revolution means no Al Qaeda." Iran has very little to do with it. The US gave money to al-Qaeda to counter the Soviets, and al-Qaeda used this money to counter Western targets -- by far, American troops in Saudi Arabia, which was its grievence in attacking the WTC. Where do you get that funny idea about Iran from?
Alborz,
I understand that people in Iran do not like coercive interventions. Unlike Iraq and North Korea, there are numerous liberty activists in Iran. Also, theocratic regime is not firmly unified.
I know that Reza Pahlavi advocates initiatives by Iranian people, at the interview with Fox News, BBC, and other major Western media.
Always on Watch,
Thank you. I shall appreciate it, if you would suggest some articles. It is quite hard to find a library where I can borrow a foreign book. At the National Diet Library or college libraries, I can find the book and read it. But they do not permit the borrowing, usually.
If the article is available on the web, I would be delighted.
Oscar,
Let me begin with Mohhamad Mossadegh. It was from 1951 to 1953 when Iran had a dispute over the Anglo Iranian Oil Company. The United States intended to mediate Britain and Iran as a disinterested and honest third party. However, Mossadegh had become increasingly radical, and even tried to establish close ties with the Soviet Union. It was a nightmare to have a Red Iran during the Cold War era. The Gulf area would have been under the Soviet influence.
It was his fault. Mossadegh should have paid sufficient attention to the logic of Cold War power politics.
(Continued)
It is true that Iran is not directly related to al Qaeda. However, it is necessary to focus on the cause and effect, and changes in the balance of power in the region. The Iranian Revolution inflicted significant influences on the power balance. This is why the US and its allies send their forces to Saudi Arabia. Also, the US needed to support Afghan guerrillas to contain Soviet expansionism. Soviets invaded Afghanistan to fill the power vacuum after the Revolution.
Most importantly, I have to mention Iraq. As long as Kemalist, whether the shah or pro-Western general, stays in power, Saddam Hussein would have never dreamed of dominating the Gulf. He was a dangerous and megalomaniac dictator, but the Kemalist policeman of the Gulf could have deterred his ambition with US made weapons. As long as this stable order is maintained, no Western forces are necessary in Saudi Arabia.
These are negative causes and effects created by the Iranian Revolution.
The US sent made permanent bases following the Gulf War, that's what caused 9/11. If the US didn't care about al-Qaeda's reaction, then she shouldn't have armed them in the first place. The reason why Mohammad Mossadegh was deposed by the US was because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry, and because he was friendly with the Soviets. Either way, it goes to show that intervening and supporting regime change only produces more extremist goverments: Hitler followed the Weimar Republic, for example.
Shah,
I apologize for not getting back to you with regard to your request. I've been busy running a friend's blog (Social Sense) as well as my own.
Here are three possible links for you to explore:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/authors.asp?ID=1021
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18929
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18546
I'm not sure all of the above pertain to your request, but I found these quickly.
Always on Watch,
Thank you very much. Social Sense? I have not visited this blog these days. I will leave comments to some posts in Social Sense.
I am preparing for the next posts. Thank you for your prompt reply.
I would like to talk about regime change in the later posts. I have some articles in my mind. Probably, later this August or early September.
Some regime changes, like post World War II Japan and Germany were successful.
Post a Comment