> The US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch. This propaganda story of the West needs to die. (They never forgave the Shah for being critical of them in

> The US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch. This propaganda story of the West needs to die. (They never forgave the Shah for being critical of them in the 70s and to this date their media lists this poor man as one of the "worst tyrants of 20th century". Same century that gave us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, PolPot, .... The man was a saint compared to most world leaders, then and now.) No one installed a monarch in Iran. The late Shah of Iran, who very much cared for Iran, was indeed permitted to succeed his father, Reza Shah ("the great"), by the occupying Alied powers (who had invaded the neutral Iran). This 'transition' to nominal power 'permitted' by external powers that occupied the entirety of Iran is a fact of Iranian history. (In fact, before accepting CIA/NYTimes account of '53 and the Shah of Iran, you may want to read up on the history of Iran from 1850 to 1950.) From that date, until the counter-coup of 1953 in which US and UK participated alongside quite a substantial subset of Iranian society, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi stayed well within the limits of Iranian constitution's limits on royal power. One noteworthy aspect of being the Shah of Iran under the constitutional regime was the ability to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister. Dr. Mossadegh, a member of the Majlis (people's assembly) was indeed put forward by that body as the Prime Minister and the Shah did formally appoint him. After the good Dr. managed to alienate most of his internal allies -- the Mullahs and the Communist Party of Iran -- he assumed dictatorial powers. He even ran an election with "99%" yes vote for his assuming such powers. That is the famous "election" the propaganda organs of the West keep mentioning. The Shah dismissed the Dr. from his office. The Dr. refused to accept this, contrary to the constitution of Iran. The Shah feared for his life, and fled. And meanwhile back in Iran, elements of Iranian military, landed gentry, Mullahs, etc. who no longer supported the (dismissed) Prime Minister organized a counter coup. So, New York Times notwithstanding, little Kermit Roosevelt did not all by his lonesome and a suitcase full of dollar bills create a coup to "install" the legal, standing, Shah of Iran. What happend to the Shah after '53, was that he had decided to push for stability in Iran and began to overstep the constitutional limits. It was during this period that Iran went from helpless victim of the insatiable greed of the British and ambitions of the Russians to a healthy state. It was only then that Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi accepted coronation. And the apparently alarming development of Iran actually got to the point that Iran began to loom as a strategic threat to Western hegemony in the Persian Gulf, having taken over the security role of British in the Persian Gulf with America's blessing and material support; establishing OPEC as a power player; and having publicly announced in '73 that "in 1979" when the oil contracts forced on a bankrupt Iran in '53 reached their term, that Iran would no longer accede to the aggregious demands of the Western Oil Cartel (the famous "seven sisters"). Surprisingly enough, it was precisely in 1979 that "revolution" broke out in Iran and BBC Persian service kindly began announcing the Ayatollah's messages and demonstration schedule. (Fact.) No one installed our King. Good and bad, warts and all, he was OUR King, our Shahanshah, and we Iranians accept full responsibility for the matter.