Mohammad Mosaddegh

[RedWine]

Born: May 19, 1882 in Tehran, Iran
Died: March 4, 1967of cancer and buried in his Ahmad Abad residence.
Other Names: Also spelled Mosaddeq, Mussadeq

Occupation: Human Rights Activist, Teacher, Lawyer, Author, Governer, Premier & Prime Minister of Iran
Claim to Fame: Nationalized Iranian Oil


Biography
Early Years:

Born to a Finance Minister Hedayat Ashtiani, who served the Minister of King Naser al-Din Qajar, Mossadegh was introduced to politics at an early age. He was near royalty with a mother who was a granddaughter of the Crown Prince Abbas Mirza. After losing his father when he was only 10, the young Mossadegh became the government's tax collection representative in Khorasan. Following the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, Mossadegh was elected from Esfahan to Parliament, a role he refused due to his young age. In 1902 he married Zahra, Princess Zia Saltaneh, a grand-daughter of Nasser-el din Shah.

In 1909 he began his at the Political Science Institute in Paris. By 1913, he had obtained his law degree from the Law School of Neuchatel in Switzerland. Upon returning to Iran, he found a job as a Professor at the Political Science Institute of Tehran. During this time Mossadegh wrote the "Civil Legal Procedure," and the "Capitulation", which were first of their kind for the Iranian legal system. In 1917, the young lawyer became deputy Finance minister and tried to battle corruption inside the ministry.

Early Politics:

In 1919, the cabinet of Vosough al-Doleh signed an agreement with the British, which made Iran a British colony. In turn, Vosugh and his Finance Ministers received 131,000 British Pounds. Mossadegh protested and within a few months, Vosough's cabinet collapsed. Moshir al-Doleh became the next Prime Minister and appointed Mossadegh to be the new minister of Justice. On his way back from Europe, the people of Shiraz, overwhelmed and asked him to be the governor of Fars. In 1921, a British-backed coup led by Seyed Zia and Reza Khan occured. Mossadegh resigned. Within 100 days, Zia lost power and Ghavam al-Saltaneh became the new Premier. This time Dr. Mossadegh became the Finance minister with full authority. Shortly thereafter, Ghavam's government fell. Moshir reclaimed the position and appointed Mossadegh to the role of Governor of Azarbaijan. There, he was not able to gain full control over the army commanders, who received orders from the War Minister Reza Khan. Again, Mossadegh resigned and went on to Tehran to become the Foreign Minister of Moshir's cabinet. He vehemently opposed the British government's reques of 2 million Pounds from Iran, for the creation of the Iranian southern police to protec British interest.

Reza Khan, who had been Commander of the Armed Forces, took the role of Premier following Moshir. Dr. Mossadegh was elected to the Parliament. Reza Khan seized the opportunity to overthrow the Qajar dynasty declared himself the new King of Iran. Under Reza Shah's rule, which grew to be a military dictatorship, Mossadegh was forced to stay under house arrest and exile. In 1941, Reza Shah was led to abdicate by the British and Russians and sent into exile to South Africa until his death.

Monumental Achievements:

The 14th Majlis (Parliament) of Tehran, elected Dr. Mossadegh as the first representative from the Capital. Mossadegh was not able to enter the 15th Majlis elections, due to interference from the new Mohammad Reza Shah, and Premier Ghavam. The two had arranged for this, so the British could confirm the 1933 oil agreement. This led them to plunder Iranian oil reserves for another 60 years. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, protected by the British, formed a Constituent Assembly, and extended his powers as a constitutional monarch. During this time, Dr. Mossadegh formed the Jebhe-ye Melli (The National Front) of Iran. Despite much interference from foreign agents, the Royal Court, and the Shah, Mossadegh and a group of his companions were elected into the next Majlis. It was this Parliament that approved the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, by the leadership of Dr. Mossadegh.

Finally in 1951, Mossadegh became Premier, and was able to enforce the Oil Nationalization Bill. The British brought on a law suit against Iran. At the United Nations Security Council in New York, Dr. Mossadegh defended the rights of Iran to its own oil. At the the Hague Court in the Netherlands, Iran was voted not guilty for nationalizing its oil. Mossadegh became an overnight world leader and hero. Political differences ensued once again with the Shah, who viewed Mossadegh as a threat to his rule and power. Mossadegh resigned once again in 1952 and the people revolted. After 4 days of bloody revolt, the newly installed Ghavam government and the shah's army was defeated. Mossadegh once again became Prime Minister of Iran.

A vicious murder plot for Mossadegh and the killing of General Afshar-Toos ensued. On August 16, 1953, with accordance to an American-British designed plan, the Shah dismissed Mossadegh. When the troops tried to deliver the news, Mossadegh's guards arrested the Royal Guard and a coup was declared. Upon hearing this news, the immeditaely Shah fled to Italy. On 17th and 18th of August 1953, people filled the streets in support of Mossadegh and tore down statues of the Pahlavi Shahs. A day later, a united CIA and MI6 (British Secret Service) bribed a few of the Ayatollahs, army officers, street thugs, and prostitutes to organize large mobs against Mossadegh. The coup reached Mossadegh's home and bloody battles followed. Finally the fight moved inside the house which was plundered and burned. Mossadegh and his companions fled the fire using a ladder to reach the neighbor's house. On August 20th, Dr. Mossadegh surrenderd to General Zahedi and the Shah returned to Iran. Mossadegh was arrested, tried and given three-year sentence in prison. Following this, the 74-year-old retreated to his quiet country home Ahmad Abad.

Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh spent his entire adult life serving his people and country, working every day for its sovereignty, and rights. A slight and unassuming man, he suffered from many ailments during his life and always had a doctor, later his own son, at hand. He favored rule of law and fought very hard to establish a national Iran with a democratic parliament and honest politicians. To this day, he is considered to be perhaps the most influential and important figures in the history of the world.

[RedWine]

مراسم چهلمين سالگرد درگذشت دكتر محمد مصدق بر سر مزار وي در روستاي احمدآباد برگزار ش

ظهر روز دوشنبه جمعي از فعالان سياسي با حضور در روستاي احمدآباد و بر مزار مصدق با نثار گل ياد و خاطره*ي او را گرامي داشتند.

در اين مراسم كه تعدادي از اهالي روستاي احمدآباد نيز حضور داشتند دكتر محمود مصدق نوه*ي مصدق ضمن گراميداشت ياد پدربزرگش و تقدير و تشكر از كساني كه در برپايي اين مراسم تلاش كرده*اند، گفت: كارهاي رسيدگي به بناي داخل ساختمان تمام شده است. خارج ساختمان نياز به ترميم دارد كه در دست اقدام است. البته با كمك دوستاني كه از هيچ اقدامي فروگذار نكرده*اند، ادامه*ي بازسازي نيز تا اول تابستان به پايان خواهد رسيد.

وي همچنين اعلام كرد كه حسابي براي كمك به بازسازي باغچه*ي احمد آباد باز شده است.

در ادامه اين مراسم مهندس شاه*ويسي با يادآوري اينكه 150 سال از نهضت قانون*خواهي و يكصد سال از مشروطه*خواهي مي*گذرد، اظهارداشت: ملت همچنان چشم*انتظاراجراي قانون به دور از تبعيض در جامعه*ي مدنيست.

وي در ادامه با اشاره به شرايط سياسي و اجتماعي ايران در دوره*ي قاجاريه، گفت: ضعف و نبود اراده*ي افراد در آن دوره از وجوه ثانوي افراد شده بود، آنها در پاسخ به نياز اصلاحات مي*گفتند ما چه*كاره*ايم كه مشروطه*ي ايراني پاسخي به همه*ي اين ضعف*ها و نيازها بود.

شاه*ويسي در ادامه با يادآوري مبارزات مردم ايران در دوران مشروطه*خواهي، اظهار داشت: آزادي*خواهان مشروطه آوردند تا استبداد نباشد، از بزرگ*ترين دستاوردهاي مشروطه*خواهي پرورش بزرگاني چون مصدق، دهخدا، مدرس، فاطمي و شاعراني چون بهار، نيما و ... بوده است.

وي در ادامه با طرح اين پرسش كه مصدق به راستي كه بود؟ تصريح كرد: درباره*ي وجوه شخصيتي و سياسي مصدق سخن بسيار رفته است. امروز بر آنم كه از زاويه*ي ديگري به اين پيرمرد احمدآبادي كه كمر ابرقدرت*ها را شكست، نوري هر چند كوچك بتابانم. مصدق با الهام از مشروطيت و اهداف آن پاي به ميدان مبارزه*اي نابرابر در صحنه*ي سياسي ايران و جهان گذاشت.

شاه*ويسي با نقبي به فضاي مجلس در زمان نخست*وزيري رزم*آرا، گفت: مصدق در آن مجلس خطاب به رزم*آرا جمله*اي دارد كه گويي برآيند تمامي خواسته*ها و آمال مشروطه*خواهان راستين بود كه صد سال است در فضاي سياسي ايران از مشروطيت تا امروز پژواك دارد. او گفت "اگر از راه آزادي و دموكراسي نتوانيم كاري كنيم از طريق اختناق، زور و قلدري براي مردم نمي*توانيم كاري انجام دهيم». رزم*آرا در جوابي عوام*فريبانه مي*گويد "اين حرف*ها كه شما مي*گوييد براي شب مردم شام نمي*شود"، مصدق پاسخ مي*دهد "براي همه*ي عصرها و نسل*ها كه حكومت زور و قلدري ممكن است يك شب يا حتي چند سال به مردم نان بدهد ولي تا خود مردم نتوانند در امور اجتماعي دخالت كنند هيچ گاه صاحب نان نمي*شوند و بايد هميشه سر بي*شام زمين بگذارند".

وي ادامه داد: مصدق ذخيره*ي عظيم اخلاق سياسي است. ماجراي مصدق براي ملت ايران نه صرفا يك حديث تاريخي كه سرودي تاريخي است. بزرگداشت مصدق بزرگداشت مردم*سالاري است. مصدق با ملي كردن صنعت نفت و بيرون راندن عوامل تحقير مردم غرور ملي و خودباوري را به ملت ايران بازگرداند.

شاه*ويسي اضافه كرد: جامعه*اي كه تاريخ و پيشينه*ي تاريخي*اش دستخوش تحقير شود و برخي بر بي*ارزش جلوه دادن غرور ملي پاي فشارند و نسبت به نمادها و اسطوره*هايش كم*توجهي شود، به بي*هويتي سوق داده مي*شود. مديران چنين جوامعي با رفتارشان فراهم*كنندگان و بسترسازان نفوذ بيگانه خواهند بود.

وي هم*چنين تاكيد كرد: بايد به بستر فرهنگي - تاريخي مشترك كه كثرت*گرايي است، روي آوريم؛ كثرت*گرايي فرهنگي – قومي توام با مردم*سالاري، در اين صورت حس مشاركت را در مردم زنده مي*كنيم. يگانگي در سايه*ي همدردي و برابري حضور به دست مي*آيد.

درادامه*ي اين مراسم مهندس عزت*الله سحابي، با يادآوري اينكه پس از مجلس هجدهم مصدق به سوسيال دموكراسي گرايش پيدا كرد، گفت: انتخابات مجلس هفدهم دراوج محبوبيت جبهه*ي ملي و زماني كه مصدق توانسته بود در شوراي امنيت سازمان ملل موفق شود، برگزار شده بود.

وي ادامه داد: پس از اين شرايط در خرداد 31 كه اين مجلس افتتاح شد مشاهده شد كه اولا نماينده*ها تكميل نشده*اند و فقط 96 نفر از 130 نماينده مشخص شده بودند و انتخابات بقيه*ي شهرها مشكل داشت. رياست مجلس نيز به عهده*ي امامي گذاشته شد، روحاني*اي كه حقوق اساسي تدريس مي*كرد و از مدافعان شاه بود. او با 52 راي از شهر مهاباد سني*نشين انتخاب شده بود.

سحابي افزود: اكثريت اين مجلس به اين شكل بالا آمده بودند. مصدق اين حقيقت را كشف كرد. او به اين تحليل رسيد كه اگر در كشوري كه نام دموكراسي و مشروطيت بر آن نهاده*اند و تفكيك قوا صورت گرفته است، حتي نبايد قوه*ي مجريه در انتخابات خللي ايجاد كند. او متوجه شد نمايندگان مجلس در آن زمان نمايندگان واقعي مردم نيستند. در جامعه قدرت*هاي مخفي و علني وجود دارد كه الزاما از مجراي قوه*ي مجريه عمل نمي*كنند.

وي اضافه كرد: ارتش در تمامي استان*هاي مرزي كشور نمايندگاني را كه خود مي*خواست به مجلس تحميل كرد. ماهيت مجلس هفدهم مشخص بود. مصدق بايد به طريقي راه به متن و توده*ي مردم باز مي*كرد. پس از حوادث سي تير شرط اول او اين بود كه ارتش زير نظر او اداره شود. او پس از بازگشت به سياست سوسيال دموكراسي را انتخاب كرد؛ چرا كه فكر مي*كرد با اين سياست است كه مي*توان به توده*ي مردم بازگشت.

سحابي در ادامه با اشاره به طرح*هايي كه مصدق در آن دوران ارايه داده بود، گفت: مصدق به كشاورزي نظر داشت و مي*خواست با توجه به توده*ي زحمت*كش به سمت صنعتي شدن برود. از شعارهاي مشروطيت استقلال، آزادي و عدالت بود، اما استقلال بدون حذف شركت نفت و پايگاه انگليس ممكن نبود.

وي در ادامه ابراز عقيده كرد: يكي از شخصيت*ها براي دفاع از پدر مرحوم خود در مجامع مختلف تزي را مطرح مي*كند كه حتي يك نفر هم آن را نپذيرفته است. ايشان مدعي است 28 مرداد كودتا نبود، انتقال قدرت بوده است. در جواب بايد گفت اگر اسناد و كتاب*ها را ببينيم ترديدي نيست كه در آن دوره كودتا اتفاق افتاده است. خود سازمان سيا مدعي است كه كودتا در ايران رخ داد. خاطرات رزولت هم بر آن صحه مي*گذارد.

سحابي در پاسخ به كساني كه مصدق را ديكتاتور مي*خواندند نيز اظهارداشت: مصدق با كسب اختيارات قانونگذاري از مجلس سعي داشت در راستاي دفاع از حقوق مردم گام بردارد. مجلس هفدهم نماينده*ي مردم نبود حتي تعدادي از افرادي كه قبلا با هم رفاقت داشتند و در مجلس هفدهم بودند در خيانت به او بسيار افراط كردند. مصدق به خاطر دفاع از حقوق مردم ايران نمي*توانست با اين مجلس همكاري كند.

وي تاكيد كرد: مصدق در دوره*اي كه ايران در محاصره*ي اقتصادي بود و درآمد نفت قطع شده بود توانست بودجه را به گونه*اي ارايه دهد كه سال 1332 بودجه با تعادل تنظيم شد.

سحابي ادامه داد: پس از پايان سال 1331 سال 32 از آغاز با توطئه آغاز شد كه سرانجام مصدق بحث رفراندوم را مطرح كرد.

وي تصريح كرد: چالش*هايي كه در خصوص مصدق مطرح مي*شود پوچ است و با واقعيت*ها سازگاري ندارد. مصدق رهبري نمونه بود. در مقابل مردم خاضع بود اما در برابر زورگويان كوتاه نمي*آمد.

در اين مراسم شخصيت*هايي چون ابراهيم يزدي، احمد صدر حاج*سيدجوادي، محمد بسته*نگار، محمد توسلي و ... حضور داشتند.

در پايان اشعاري از حميد مصدق و همچنين سرود «اي ايران» از سوي حاضران قرائت شد.

[donsaeid]

Dr. Mossadegh! Politic section! ;)
http://www.tapesh.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4551

[RedWine]

In yek mah ghadimitar az mal-e shomast :lol:

[donsaeid]

edited

[RedWine]

Decades after the events of 1950's in Iran, there is still a lot of heated debates about what happened, who was to blame and why? The issue which in some people's view, originated from intervention of foreign elements in order to influence Iran's political process, had profound impact on the future events which happened during the years after that. Antagonistic atmosphere of Iranian politics has always been filled with extremist tendencies and emotions towards one side or another during this period which contributed a lot to creation of many unfounded stories around those events that eventually resulted in start of one of the cruelest governing systems of the world in our country.

Logical and thorough analysis of these historical events requires true neutrality towards all sides in order to bring a fair conclusion to a chapter in Iran's modern history and find out what went wrong without looking for someone to blame. It goes without saying that historical events of this magnitude can not be result of mistakes or bad intentions of a single person considering that every human being is capable of making mistakes while others can view those mistakes with different interpretations depending on their own political stand. To this day, Islamic regime of Iran and some other extremist elements with different political affiliations have been trying to take advantage of the situation by adding to misinformation and confusion about this matter. This cycle must be stopped and Iranians need to get over the paranoia about the events that has paralyzed their ability to deal with current issues at hand.

First step in this direction is to admit the existence of an issue that needs to be addressed in order to reach a settlement and create the grounds for further progress in the politics of the nation with confidence and trust. We need to put an end to all these bickering about the issues of the past which have been used by enemies to create division among our democratic forces. Who says that we "have to" be either on the side of Dr. Mossadegh or the Shah? A realistic analysis of the services by these two patriotic leaders will clearly show that they were both working for the interests of the nation. Political differences and judgment errors based on lack of proper and mutual understanding and also miscommunications happens between political leaders in the world everyday. Why should this matter have such a destructive effect over political destiny of a nation for so long?!

Unfortunately for Iranian people, geographical situation of the country has been an important contributing factor to many problems for them during centuries. The rulings of different conquerors that came to their land for wealth and fortune since the end of Sassanid era have made the situation worse every time. Even assimilation of some of those conqueror tribes did not save the nation from being treated as "conquered" for a very long time and destructive effects and influence of that status in every stage became a preface to another disastrous chapter in the nation's history. Surely, there have been times when Iranians have had some relative peace here and there with coming of a patriotic and caring leader but every time, that period of peace has been interrupted by eruption of brutality from another treasure hunter or greedy conqueror.

Tragic endings to stories of people like Babak Khoramdin, Abumuslim Khorasani, Maziar, Yaghub Leys Safari, Hassan Sabah and countless other known and unknown figures who tried their best to counter destructive forces of occupiers and invaders is a small portion from a long list that indicate the extent of efforts which have been made by Iranians to recover from the status of conquered. Political use of Shiite religious ideology during rule of Safavid tribe in order to repel the neighboring nation which was attempting to create an Islamic empire was a genius idea at that time in giving a distinctive status to the nation and separate them from the rest of Islamic world but extremist attitude that resulted from it became a hazardous byproduct which Iranians have to deal with till this day.

The damage caused by status of "conquered" that has continued for centuries has in fact become embedded in Iranian culture so deeply that it has created a cloud of distrust and paranoia over political atmosphere of the nation. Destructive influence of powerful colonial empires particularly during the reign of Kadjar kings made this matter even worse and competence and patriotism among Iranian politicians and leaders became a rare quality.

Expansion of the culture of "house boy" during this era, in which some Iranians openly showed their dependency to this or that foreign power by raising a flag on their rooftops to enjoy the privileges of this shameful act, had completely undermined the independence of the whole nation which once was a proud empire. At the same time, western civilization was advancing with speed of light and the number of Iranians who visited western nations was on the rise but these visitors could only convey their own wonders and admirations as a souvenir when they went back home! Among them, the new generation of Iranian leaders and politicians joined admirers of this or that western nation while failing to recognize their own problems and shortcomings in dealing with domestic issues.

Extreme poverty which was direct result from looting of Iranian national wealth by cruel tribal and national rulers, along with extensive power of religious figures who linked every simple event to divine powers and had control over all aspects of ordinary people's lives, had created a lot of opportunities for prevalence of corruption and expansion of influence by colonial powers. It was under this circumstances which people like Qavam-ol-saltaneh, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and Reza khan appeared in the political arena of Iran. Qavam and Dr. Mossadegh were aristocrats with links and relations to old school of Iranian politicians and long family history in that field while Reza khan, who came a bit later, was coming from the bottom of society with a considerable bag full of personal experience in poverty and all other issues that ordinary Iranians were facing in those days. Unlike Qavam and Dr. Mossadegh who had inherited their privileged status, Reza khan had gone through an adventurous and evolutionary process to get to where he was.

In simple words, Reza khan was an outsider while Qavam and Dr. Mossadegh were insiders to the ruling system who had both tribal and political links to the ruling class at that time. One could only expect that these differences in background would have an impact on relations between those people and the way that they viewed each other in the political battle field. One thing is certain about all of them and that is they all cared about well being of the nation and the differences came from their past experiences.

While Reza Khan later had the opportunity to implement some of his dreams through moving Iran in direction of becoming a modern and stable state, Qavam-ol-Saltaneh and Dr. Mossadegh made an imprint of their name in the history of our nation as patriotic leaders who deserve to be remembered with respect and honor. The issues and differences which came up later between Dr. Mossadegh and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran over implementing nationalization of Iranian oil industry should be analyzed and examined in the same context and with extreme caution. Both sides of this conflict definitely had mistakes and failures but blaming this or that side for all the problems with a "tit for tat" mentality will only prolong the shadow of distrust between political forces and prepares the ground for enemies to take advantage of this situation.

[RedWine]

(بعنوان یک استاد ایرانی دانشگاه در تبعید، این برگردان را تقدیم به دانشجوی جانباخته سنندجی، آقای ابراهیم لطف اللهی می نمایم. امیدوارم روزی در ایرانی آزاد و دموکراتیک به یادبود وی و سایر دانشجویان شهید راه آزادی و دموکراسی ایران به رایگان در خدمت دانشجویان کردستان و سایر مناطق ایران باشم.) -- حمید اکبری

ویلیام داگلاس، قاضی مشهور دیوان عالی آمریکا، از دوستداران پابرجای مردم ایران بود و از حقوق آنها آشکارا دفاع می کرد. او معتقد بود که ((ایرانیان از نظر روحیه پیوند خویشاوندی نزدیک با آمریکایی ها دارند)). او دارای دوستان ایرانی زیادی بود و نسبت به نخست وزیر ایران، دکتر مصدق، احترام و دوستی داشت.

در پاییز سال ۱۹۵۱ (۱۳۳۰) در خلال سفر دکتر مصدق به آمریکا بدفعات با وی دیدار کرد و از جمله در روز ۵ نوامبر میزبان شخصی دکتر مصدق در بازدید او از محل دیوان عالی ایالات متحده آمریکا بود. پس از سرنگونی مصدق، قاضی داگلاس اظهار داشت: ((وقتی که مصدق و ایرانیان دست به اصلاحات پایه ای زدند، ما احساس خطر کردیم و با انگلیسی ها همدست شدیم و مصدق را نابود کردیم. ما موفق شدیم ولی از آنروز نام آمریکا در خاورمیانه افتخار آمیز نبوده است)).

قاضی داگلاس در سال ۱۹۸۰ در سن ۸۲ سالگی در گذشت.

برگردان های زیر از انگلیسی از کتاب ((نامه های داگلاس)) به کوشش ملوین یوروفسکی صورت گرفته است. (ناشر: آدلر و آدلر، بتسدا، مریلند، ۱۹۸۷)

((قاضی ویلیام داگلاس برای ۳۶ سال - که رکورد محسوب می شود - در دیوان عالی آمریکا قضاوت کرد. در تمامی این سالها، قاضی داگلاس به عنوان طرفدار سرسخت محیط زیست، جهانگرد خستگی ناپذیر، و مردی با دوستان بی شمار در مقامات بالای دولتی و در محافل امور مالی و حقوقی بود و نیز چهره ای جنجال بر انگیز شناخته می شد. خصوصیات او که شامل درستی، کنجکاوی شگرف ذهنی و دامنه وسیع زمینه های مورد علاقه اش بود، اتخاذ سکوت در مسایل غیر حقوقی را برای قاضی داگلاس غیر ممکن می ساخت. بعنوان لیبرالی تزلزل ناپذیر، احتمالا او بیش از هر قاضی دیگری در قرن بیستم از حقوق فردی دفاع کرده است. او دارای دشمنان زیادی بود که اغلب وی را تهدید به اعلام جرم ومحاکمه می کردند)).

((نامه به دکتر محمد مصدق))

۱۵ نوامبر ۱۹۵۱

آقای نخست وزیر گرامی،

مایلم پیش از آنکه شما آمریکا را ترک نمایید، مطلبی را به عرض برسانم. من اطمینان دارم که سفر شما [به آمریکا] بسیار ارزشمند بوده و موجب حسن نیت میان آمریکا و ایران است. ممکن است که سرمقاله امروز صبح در ((واشنگتن پست))* شما را مأیوس کرده باشد. آن سر مقاله منعکس کننده نظر انگلیسی ها در مورد ایران است و به باور من نظر آمریکایی ها را نمایندگی نمی کند. من مطمئنم که مردم و همچنین مقامات آمریکا در نتیجه سفر شما متوجه مسایل بزرگی که برای کشورتان مطرح است شده اند.

شاید در این هنگام عزیمت، نومیدی به قلب شما رخنه کرده باشد. اما [بر اثر سفر شما] کارهای بسیار خوبی صورت گرفته است. من فکر می کنم که احساسات اکثریت مردم آمریکا به سود مردم بزرگوار شما بیشتر و بیشتر می شود و در مقابل سیاست کریه و آزمندانه انگلستان زیر نظر دولت چرچیل - همانگونه که من و شما به آن پی برده ایم - برای همگان عیان می شود.

* اشاره به سرمقاله ای در روزنامه ((واشنگتن پست)) علیه مصدق است که به سخنرانی مصدق در باشگاه ملی مطبوعات برای تکرار اتهامات علیه شرکت نفت ایران و انگلیس بجای طرح سیاست های مدرنیزه کردن ایران، ایراد گرفته بود.

((نامه به کورش شهباز))*

دوم نوامبر ۱۹۵۲

شهباز گرامیم،

... من به هر طریقی که بتوانم در راه پیشبرد اهداف ایران [در مبارزه با استعمار] و رهبر بسی بزرگوارش، مصدق، تلاش کرده ام. وقتی که او در واشنگتن دی سی بود، بدفعات ایشان را دیدم و بسیار تحت تاثیر واقع شدم. هم اکنون من مشغول ساختن فیلمی در باره ایران هستم که در کانال های تلویزیون به نمایش گذارده می شود. بخش هایی از این فیلم را خودم در طی سفرهایم به ایران برداشتم و بخش هایی از فیلم دیگران است. این فیلم اساساً در برگیرنده موضوع اصلی کتاب من ((سرزمین های غریب و مردمان مهربان)) است...

به اعلیحضرت [محمد رضا شاه پهلوی] بگویید که بسیار مسرور خواهم بود که به هر وسیله ای برای پخش اطلاعات مربوط به برنامه تقسیم اراضی ایشان همکاری نمایم. شاید نوشتن مقاله ای بوسیله ایشان کار لازم است. و اگر ایشان ترجیح بدهند، خوشحال خواهم شد که اینکار را خودم بر عهده گیرم، مشروط آنکه اسناد لازم با ترجمه انگلیسی را بهمراه عکس های مربوط برایم ارسال دارند. و یا اگر اعلیحضرت ترجیح دهند، این امکان برای من وجود دارد که در ماه ژوئن برای چند هفته ای به ایران سفر نمایم و با اشخاص وارد گفتگو کنم و با تهیه عکس های اضافی، مقاله را بنویسم.

در ارتباط با این موضوع، امکاناً به اعلیحضرت بفرمایید که فیلمی که در باره ایران در دست تهیه دارم ارزش آموزشی و تبلیغاتی بسزایی بسود اهداف و منافع ایران** خواهد داشت و شاید هنگامی که به ایران سفر کنم بتوانیم که فیلم مستندی هم در زمینه برنامه جالب و الهام بخش تقسیم اراضی [اعلیحضرت] تهیه نماییم.

* ویلیام داگلاس کورش شهباز را در یکی از سفرهای پیشینش به ایران شناخته بود و واسطه شغلی برای او در سفارت آمریکا در ایران شده بود.

** یادداشت مترجم: منظور مبارزه ملت ایران به رهبری دکتر مصدق برای رهایی از سیاست های استعماری دولت بریتانیا و اجرای قانون ملی شدن صنعت نفت ایران است. از لحن این نامه بر می آید که قاضی داگلاس متوجه حساسیت محمد رضا شاه به آوازه جهانی دکتر مصدق در مبارزه اش برای احقاق حقوق ایران است و می کوشد که با طرح و اهمیت دادن به برنامه تقسیم اراضی پادشاه از میزان این حساسیت بکاهد و ارادت خود به وی را ابراز دارد.

[RedWine]

While doing a project recently, I was reading about the 1953 coup again. Every time I read the details, of how a man was undermined by national and international forces determined to bring him down, it brings tears to my eyes, even though the events took place two generations ago, at a time when I was not even born.

For as long as I can remember, I have always lived in the shadow of Mossadegh, the idol of my father. As I got older and started reading more about this visionary man, I became more than just a sympathizer. I came to believe that he was ahead for his time. As time went on, my admiration for his democratic principles only grew.

As I read through the pages of history books, I came to conclude that the advice of "wise men and women," foreign experts on Iran and its politics, had played a role in the decision of the major powers, Great Britain and the US, to bring him down. Various names come to mind: Zahner, Wilber, and Lambton. Robin Zahner, who was at Oxford, and fluent in Persian became a major player in this scheme. Profoundly religious and known to have experimented with drugs and an alcoholic, he was a covert operative for the British intelligence.

Donald Wilber, who had earned a doctoral degree in architecture at Princeton, had worked extensively in Iran and the Middle East during World War II and was stationed in Iran working for OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, specializing in psychological warfare. As for Ann (Nancy) Lambton, she played a much more decisive role in this whole affair. She was the expert and the foreign analyst who advised the British government, worked in high circles and recommended that no compromise with Mossadegh was to take place under any circumstances.

"Having failed to persuade Attlee to order an invasion, Morrison decided to begin covert action. He turned first to two distinguished scholars who had spent years studying Iran and where sympathetic to the British position there. The first, Ann K. S. Lambton, who had been press attachÈ at the British Embassy in Tehran during World War II and gone on to become one of Britain's leading scholars of Iran. At Morrison's request, she began suggesting 'effective lines of propaganda' that the British might use to turn the Iranian public opinion against Mossadegh." (Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: an American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, 2003)

"The British, determined to undermine Mossadeq from the day he was elected premier, refused to negotiate seriously with him. For instance, Professor Lambton, serving as a Foreign Office consultant, advised as early as November 1951 that the British government should persevere in 'undermining' Mossadeq, refused to reach an agreement with him, and reject American attempts to find a compromise solution. 'The Americans,' She insisted, 'do not have the experience or the psychological insight to understand Persia.'" (Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic, 1993)

Most of the key players have since died, but she is still around, living in the English countryside. Although she is now very old, she has never publicly acknowledged her role in the 1953 coup. Maybe she is just too ashamed.

She saw Mossadegh as a danger! Yes, indeed he was dangerous to their plans of bloody greed and power. But who was he really? He was a man who had studied law in the West, had a doctoral degree, and had written his thesis on "the law of inheritance in Shi'a Islam." He came from the nobility yet opposed it, had been imprisoned by Reza Shah for opposing the latter's dictatorial decrees and he truly and genuinely believed in democracy, the kind of government his British and American opponents supposedly supported as well and claimed for their home counties. He believed in a free press, a vital component of democracy, but the Iranian, British and American collaborators used that same press to discredit and defame him. They used the press, bribing journalists, and lied to the Iranian people and the world at large about him. So why were they so adamant to destroy him and his government? Was he not corruptible enough for them? Or was he too smart for his own good? The men they helped bring to power in Iran were nothing like him. General Zahedi was an uneducated, greedy crook, a Nazi sympathizer, a womanizer and and a murderer. (It is alleged that he was involved in the murder of Afshartoos, Mossadegh's head of the police and security apparatus.) The Shah and his family were utterly corrupt. The rest is history, a very sad history for Iran.

Sadly enough, Lambton was rewarded for her treacherous role. Immediately after the coup, while an honorable man was put on trial for "treason" and sent to prison and the real traitors occupied the seats of power, Ann Lambton became the chair of Persian at the University of London in 1953, and an honorary degree was bestowed upon her that same year. Later on, she received more honorary degrees from different British universities. I sometimes wonder, if history had unfolded differently, how many honorary degrees would Mossadegh have received from academic institutions around the world?

Alas, he spent the rest of his life as a prisoner in his own house. While Lambton and her masters basked in the glory of having gotten rid of a dangerous man, Mossadegh was not even allowed to leave his home until his death. He once told my father, one of the few people who were allowed to visit him that the Americans would have never acted alone if they had not been pressured by the British. Sadly enough, when he asked the Eisenhower administration for economic aid, while his government was under tremendous pressure and Iran suffered crippling sanctions, he was turned down. By that time the Americans and the British formed one united front against Mossadegh.

"Nancy Lambton believed that covert operations to overthrow Mossdeq would be the only way to achieve a stable and pro-Western government in Iran; and she not only moved in high circles within the Foreign Office but was a friend of Anthony Eden." "In her view, the 'stupidity, greed and lack of judgment by the ruling classes in Persia' caused the government to be corrupt and parasitic."

In a biographical note preceding her latest article, published in 2001 in the Durham Middle East papers, there is no reference to her role in the treacherous affair. Was she too ashamed or afraid of the consequences? But here is what is written about her on Wikipedia under her name: "Ann Lambton played a role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh. After the decision to nationalize Iran's oil interests, she advised the British government to undermine the authority of Mossadegh's regime. She suggested Oxford University professor R. C. Zaehner to go to Iran and begin covert operations. With the help of the CIA, the regime of Mossadegh was overthrown and the Shah of Iran was in power."

What to say about a person like her or those who have since served Presidents and heads of states with their ill advice? I believe individuals like her must have deep rooted complexes, no personal life, no human emotions, to have come up with such schemes and lies to destroy a man who desired nothing more than honor for his people. All he wanted was the same things that the English or Americans enjoy in their countries.

How ironic it is that fifty-five years after that shameful event and after all the attempts by the Shah and the current clerical regime to erase his name from the pages of history, Mossadegh remains the most respected politician of Iran. Even today, at student demonstrations in Iran, Mossadegh's photos are exhibited as a symbol of democracy. Do these scholars in the field ever ask themselves why? Or were greed and hegemony too precious to give up?

"Lambton's view of Mosaddeq as a dangerously irrational, anti-British nationalist also found expressions in minutes written. {she} characteristically urged the Foreign Office To boycott Mosaddeq as far as possible and to deal with him only when necessary to preserve public order." (Wm. Roger Louis, "Britain and overthrow of Mosaddeq," in Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, eds., Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, 2004).

Because of such individuals, so-called academicians who give policy advice to their governments, men and women's lives are destroyed all over this globe. They no doubt think of themselves as brilliant, churn out new books every year, prosper in their fields, but they are nothing but pitiful figures. They will not go down in history as individuals who made the world a better place but as actors who helped make history take a turn for the worse. In the case of Iran, this meant a change from an incipient democracy to a dictatorship and now a theocracy.

Today, the likes of Ann Lambton, accomplished and celebrated scholars offering policy advice, are still with us, this time in the form of those who advised G.W. Bush to go to war in Iraq. One stands out, Princeton Professor Emeritus in Middle East history, Bernard Lewis. A former British national and member of MI6, Lewis was a mentor to another highly regarded academic, former US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who left the World Bank in shame and is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute . Bernard Lewis visited the White House on many occasions, purveying his conviction that Iraq, turned into a democracy would be a beacon for the Middle East at large, causing the dominoes to fall.

[RedWine]

Ironically, Bernard Lewis and Ann Lambton edited quite a few articles together!

Others may disagree, but I do not find these people particularly brilliant and certainly not accomplished. For all their scholarly insight, they totally misread the realities of Middle East and in the end did not necessarily serve their own countries' interests.

Moreover, Ann Lambton does not personify the best in moral values even if she claims to be a devout Christian.

There is a fine line between being responsible and being a great scholar. Certainly, responsibility rests with those who suggest change but their distorted analyses and perverse recommendations result in consequences that are more disastrous. The current situation in the Middle East is testimony to their miscalculations.

Finally, Mossadegh was everything that they will never be.