Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Iran needs some democracy


Recommended Posts

On 9/3/2018 at 6:29 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

The Russians tried but failed as the Shah resisted them and kicked them out in 1946 but from 1941 to 1953 Iran was a democracy but after the British inspired coup by CIA political democracy died in Iran but still there was absolute social democracy. In their social lives Iran nation lived like western culture including having bars, alcohol, social freedom and absolute choice in what to wear and what to do in their private lives unlike regional countries where social freedoms were curbed.

Once the mullahs stole the power in 1979 coup then all kinds of freedom died in Iran, Even freedom in your bedroom and what you wear, drink or eat or who to socialized and political freedom was curbed in a brutal manner. Time for this brutal regime to go and since US is responsible for the political dictatorship by their 1953 coup then it is the responsibility of the US government now to help Iran nation to kick this murderous islamic regime out and restore democracy in their homeland. Many believe that the current leaders of Iran are Russian agents and there may be some truth to that as they are giving away Iran's land and sea and resources to Russians so if true then Russians are back in Iran. 

 

Iran was far better-off under the Shah and his wife. Allied with Israel...at war with nobody...swimming in cash...etc, etc. But the Mullahs didn't like being allied with...hissssssss...Jews.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I will say this for a poster who has asked I speak out as well. I have close friends who left Iran for Israel and Canada-some Jews, some Bahaiis, some Muslims. I also know gays, Zoroastreans who had t

I've been led to believe that in countries such as Iran and Turkey the difference between big cities and the countryside is huge. In Tehran and Istanbul you can hardly see any difference compared to a

We do not, and cannot, know how genuine democracy will come to Iran. It may come via a general strike, followed by an insurrection, which would necessarily cost many lives. But there are a m

Posted Images

On 8/20/2018 at 2:53 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

This coup led to a dictatorship and resulted in a anti-US revolution...

Actually the worst effect of the coup was what it did to the US - the success of the coup emboldened them to do the same elsewhere - it was the first in a long series of steps, the worst of which have led to the growing respectability that authoritarianism everywhere is enjoying.

It's resulting in a anti-democratic revolution of oligarchy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Iran was far better-off under the Shah and his wife. Allied with Israel...at war with nobody...swimming in cash...etc, etc. But the Mullahs didn't like being allied with...hissssssss...Jews.

Iran was not allied with Israel. They had a mutually beneficial relationships sometimes exchanging military intelligence. Arabs were/are historically enemies of Iran. Not to mention the invasion and imposition of islam but also as recent as 20th century calling Iranian oil province of Khuzestan as Arabestan (and Iraq invaded in 1980 with intention to capture and annex it) and calling the rightful historic name of Persian Gulf some other nonsense. Therefore as they say, the enemy of my enemy is conveniently my friend.

Yes Shah's father Reza Shah the great built Iran from nothing and with nothing in only 16 short years before being forced to abdicate by the British and then his son after a 20 years pause started re-construction which accelerated in his last years. Iran had double digit growth and rapidly rising standard of living and expanding middle class and was called the island of stability and a regional power by mid 70's. The fictional movie planet of the apes become a reality when the subhuman mullahs started opposition to the Shah for power. The shah who never wanted his thrown on the blood of his people unlike mullahs refused to order his powerful army to shoot into the crowd of gangsters and criminals who started a so called revolution (a coup) by promising people free houses and easy money with oil money and these apes took power by a coup in 1979 by lies and deception. The US (idiot Carter administration) and the Shah delivered a rich prosperous Iran to these apes and these apes in spite of having significantly more oil money than the Shah completely destroyed the country and its nation in 40 years. Their mission accomplished so now they are fleeing with billions of dollars taken out of the country abroad.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

Trump's strategy is to collapse the Iranian gov. Iran's strategy is to wait out the Trump presidency.

IF both strategies are viable, the question is:

Will Trump be impeached before Iran's gov collapses, or will Iran collapse first?

If the former starts become true, will Netanyahu start a war?

Trump will be re-elected and will be in power for another 6 years. US economy has never been so great with historic low unemployment rate and inflation and booming economy and investment and consumer confidence while US is gaining back its international prestige lost during democrat presidents idiots like Carter and Obama. By then Iran regime is buried in the dirt bag of the history and the ruling apes six feet under by its own people

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Iran was not allied with Israel.

 

You're free to pretend whatever you wish re: Iran and Israel during the Shah's days. I realize you have a deep hatred for Israel that's not going to go away anytime soon. But like it or not, the two nations got along...even better AFTER the Six Day War....which Iran sat out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Trump will be re-elected and will be in power for another 6 years. US economy has never been so great with historic low unemployment rate and inflation and booming economy and investment and consumer confidence while US is gaining back its international prestige lost during democrat presidents idiots like Carter and Obama. By then Iran regime is buried in the dirt bag of the history and the ruling apes six feet under by its own people

Sounds like you're too drinking the Trump coolaid.

Trump' has had a lot of failures and this administration is on the list of many failures.

Trump Airlines -- Failed
Trump Casinos -- Failed
Trump Mortgage -- Failed
Trump University -- Failed
Trump Vodka -- Failed
China Connection -- Failed
Bankruptcies -- Four of them

Remind me again, what makes him such a winner, besides him continuously telling the world that he is?

Here are some charts that show that Trump's performance has not made any real change in the US economy or it is just following Obama's performance:

_99668183_usgdp.png

 

_99660598_3-unempl-nc.png

this downward trend began during President Barack Obama's time in office. When Mr Obama left the White House, unemployment was 4.8%.

 

_99671718_usworkforce-nc.png

Following the global economic crash, the labour force participation rate in the US fell dramatically and now stands at 63%. It has remained stable since Mr Trump was elected.

 

_99660595_6-tradedeficit-nc.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You're free to pretend whatever you wish re: Iran and Israel during the Shah's days. I realize you have a deep hatred for Israel that's not going to go away anytime soon. But like it or not, the two nations got along...even better AFTER the Six Day War....which Iran sat out.

Are you crazy!!!!!. You have never read my posts? I am an Israel supporter. I am the one who said Israel has to be forceful for self defense because it is surrounded by hateful Arabs who will drive their people into the sea and justified their actions by saying that if Arabs were in their position (of power) there would have been massacre (and thank God they never be. Yes I don't appreciate crimes committed by Israeli army against innocent women and children or shooting the paramedics but deep hate for Israel!!!!!!!!!. What the hell is wrong with you throwing accusations like that. Next you are going to call me a muslim fanatic or an Arab or something? Educate yourself before talking nonsense!!!!!!.

I was just stating historic facts. In both Arab Israeli wars Iran supported Arabs in the UN openly though behind the door was buying Israeli arms and exchanged intelligence and sold its oil. But the pre-revolutionary government was not really a friend of Israel as the Shah himself was t some extend religious regrettfully and that was why he refused to clamp down hard on these mullahs. That said Iran and Israel will be best friends hopefully in near future when these apes fall and go back to their barns since many Iranians like Israel now. They have realized that Arabs are the real enemy of Iran not Israel.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, marcus said:

I like this interview, by this Iranian woman, on a U.S. station - she tries to put some context behind simplistic comments and slogans:

This woman does NOT represent the repressed Iranian woman but a muslim woman whose first and foremost priority is being a muslim not Iranian which is a victim of muslim invasion 14 centuries ago (and certainly not the US where she is holding her citizenship and has begged to come there and been accepted there). She does not say a word about the repressed Iranian women who are jailed and being beaten up daily because of bad hijab by the hated islamic regime or the fact that under forced imposed islamic laws and she lies about hijab forcefully taken off before revolution. She also lies that a majority of Iranian women want forced hijab now!!!!! Big liar.  But She does not say a word about  women have less rights than men or the dire economic situation under mullahs or suffering of the nation but rather she plays a victim that she was attacked because of her hijab and then starts attacking her host country the US.

How can she be trusted with anything she says when she turns her back first to her birth country and then to her citizenship country. If US was so bad then go back to your own and kiss the bottom of the ape mullahs. marcus also does not represent Iranian citizens which right now are risking their lives every day in order to bring democracy back to their homeland and their people. This is a time for cooperation not a time for discontent unless you work for the regime.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, marcus said:

How do you know that?

 

Because she stood for islam not Iran in her interview. She defended islam not Iranian women repressed under islamiic regime. She lied about pre-revolutionary Iran as during the Shah there was a choice for women and no one forced to be hijabless and said nothing about women's repression under mullahs. She lied about the majority of women in Iran wanting hijab. She speaking with American accent even criticized her host country. She did not say the name of Iran even once but talked about muslims many times. 

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Because she stood for islam not Iran in her interview. She defended islam not Iranian women repressed under islamiic regime. She lied about pre-revolutionary Iran as during the Shah there was a choice for women and no one forced to be hijabless

You are simply wrong.

In 1936, as part of a Westernizing crusade, Reza Shah banned the veil. This move was welcome by the Westernized upper class. To enforce this decree, the police were ordered to physically remove the veil from any woman who wore it in public. Women were beaten, their headscarves and chadors torn off, and their homes forcibly searched.[1][2][3][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Until Reza Shah's abdication in 1941, many women simply chose not leave their houses in order to avoid such embarrassing confrontations,[1][6][7][8][10] and a few even committed suicide to avoid removing their hijabs due to the decree.[6][7][8] A far larger escalation of violence occurred in the summer of 1935 when Reza Shah ordered all men to wear European-style bowler hats, which was Western par excellence. This provoked massive non-violent demonstrations in July in the city of Mashhad, which were brutally suppressed by the Imperial Iranian army, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 100 to 500 people (including women and children).

Link

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, marcus said:

You are simply wrong.

In 1936, as part of a Westernizing crusade, Reza Shah banned the veil. This move was welcome by the Westernized upper class. To enforce this decree, the police were ordered to physically remove the veil from any woman who wore it in public. Women were beaten, their headscarves and chadors torn off, and their homes forcibly searched.[1][2][3][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Until Reza Shah's abdication in 1941, many women simply chose not leave their houses in order to avoid such embarrassing confrontations,[1][6][7][8][10] and a few even committed suicide to avoid removing their hijabs due to the decree.[6][7][8] A far larger escalation of violence occurred in the summer of 1935 when Reza Shah ordered all men to wear European-style bowler hats, which was Western par excellence. This provoked massive non-violent demonstrations in July in the city of Mashhad, which were brutally suppressed by the Imperial Iranian army, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 100 to 500 people (including women and children).

Link

Reza Shah was the greatest King in Persian history matching the other greats such as Cyrus and Darius. He saved Iran from complete destruction and built Iran with no oil revenue  in just 16 years. You attacking his great majesty shows your anti-Iranian nature. I don;t personally believe in the ban of hijab as much as I oppose hijab, if it is a women's choice and has not been forced upon her by family force or cultural forces however, what Reza Shah did was trying to free women from the veil for just a few years and is NOT worse than what these subhuman apes are doing in Iran for 40 years forcing women to hide behind veil. HOWEVER THAT WAS NOT BEFORE REVOLUTION (the coup) which took place place in 1979 as the woman in video claimed and you are trying to misrepresent . For 37 years under his son,  woman in Iran  absolute freedom of choice what to wear and equal right something that is contrary to backward Islamic laws but they were progressive and granted many equal rights to women by both Pahlavi Kings. He also knew that mullahs are Iran's enemy and some British agents and wanted to free Iran from these apes. That is why IRANIANS ARE NOW CALLING HIS NAME EVERYWHERE ON STREETS OF IRAN. LONG LIVE REZA SHAH THE GREAT AND BLESS THE PAHLAVI DYNASTY Long live Iran, Long live Pahlavi dynasty.

You are likely a regime mercenary or a brain washed Iranian who has adopted a western name and pointing out to some measures which was necessary at the time for the good of Iran (otherwise these ape mullahs would have taken power much sooner and destroyed Iran and its nation) and ignore all the constructions and modernization and freedoms during Pahlavi dynasty and also ignore the mass murders and imprisonments commuted by this anti-Iran and anti-Iranian regime. Shame on you if your hands are stained with the blood of your own people. Karma is awaiting you.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90223976/heres-how-iranian-trolls-used-russian-tactics-to-woo-liberals-on-facebook

Iran regime-linked social media accounts used names like Berniecrats and The British Left to promote a mix of Western progressive memes and pro-Iran regime and pro-Palestine messages.

 

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You are likely a regime mercenary or a brain washed Iranian who has adopted a western name

There you go again. Someone disagrees with you, points to where you're wrong and you start foaming at the mouth and calling the person a regime mercenary.

If you do this again, I see no point in communicating with you. Try not to make yourself irrelevant with your name calling, accusations and stubbornness when it comes to forum discussions. 

7 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

and pointing out to some measures which was necessary at the time for the good of Iran

There is nothing good about forcing people to dress a certain way. You are advocating against democracy and freedom of speech.

You may want to paint a rosy picture of the Shah era and call him "the greatest king in Persian history", but the reality is that there were a lot of issues during his reign. I really dislike black and white approaches such as yours. 

After the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, when the United States and the United Kingdom, removed Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was originally focused on nationalizing Iran's oil industry, but also set out to weaken the Shah from power on August 19, 1953. After the coup, the monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah, established an intelligence service with police powers. The Shah's goal was to strengthen his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repressing dissident movements

The Savak was one of the most brutal secret service groups. It rivals the Revolutionary Guards as far as their actions against free speech. Evin prison did not get its reputation after the Mullahs came to power. It was built by the Shah.

7 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Shame on you if your hands are stained with the blood of your own people. Karma is awaiting you.

Lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ol' Reza was playing too fast and loose with the Nazis at a time when that was a BIG mistake. A wee operation known as Barbarossa was underway.

 

Hitler sends Happy Nowruz wishes to Reza Shah. How nice.

9edwteuovqmy.jpg.febe4c9820d6d5a5a82bcf90ac957b82.jpg

Had he kept the whole affair more quiet rather than renaming the country...etc...things might have gone much differently...especially if Rommel could drag victory from Italian defeat in North Africa. Iran could have joined the Axis with some proper support rather than hanging-out on a low branch for Stalin to pluck. 

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Ol' Reza was playing too fast and loose with the Nazis at a time when that was a BIG mistake. A wee operation known as Barbarossa was underway.

  Reveal hidden contents

Hitler sends Happy Nowruz wishes to Reza Shah. How nice.

9edwteuovqmy.jpg.febe4c9820d6d5a5a82bcf90ac957b82.jpg

Had he kept the whole affair more quiet rather than renaming the country...etc...things might have gone much differently...especially if Rommel could drag victory from Italian defeat in North Africa. Iran could have joined the Axis with some proper support rather than hanging-out on a low branch for Stalin to pluck. 

Old Reza Shah took a neutral stance against the Nazis during world war II unlike some other countries (you know very well) who despised jews.....Bosnia was one them where your uncle served.....

Operation Barbarossa was to cut off the supply lines of the Nazis through caucasus. Look up ooeration countenance for Persian corridor by Nazis....

Edited by kactus
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, marcus said:

There you go again. Someone disagrees with you, points to where you're wrong and you start foaming at the mouth and calling the person a regime mercenary.

If you do this again, I see no point in communicating with you. Try not to make yourself irrelevant with your name calling, accusations and stubbornness when it comes to forum discussions. 

There is nothing good about forcing people to dress a certain way. You are advocating against democracy and freedom of speech.

You may want to paint a rosy picture of the Shah era and call him "the greatest king in Persian history", but the reality is that there were a lot of issues during his reign. I really dislike black and white approaches such as yours. 

After the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, when the United States and the United Kingdom, removed Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was originally focused on nationalizing Iran's oil industry, but also set out to weaken the Shah from power on August 19, 1953. After the coup, the monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah, established an intelligence service with police powers. The Shah's goal was to strengthen his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repressing dissident movements

The Savak was one of the most brutal secret service groups. It rivals the Revolutionary Guards as far as their actions against free speech. Evin prison did not get its reputation after the Mullahs came to power. It was built by the Shah.

Lol.

How many times have you spoken out about atrocities being committed by THIS Islamic regime?? About what is going on right now NOT 65 years ago. How many times did you attack this regime for shooting peaceful demonstrators, beating up women who refuse to wear forced hijab, jailing human rights activists like Narin Sotoudeh  and her husband, jailing the union leaders, students, political opponents, environmentalists, women, workers, farmers ..... and killing them in jails. How many times you mentioned this occupying evil force destroying your homeland? Selling out land and sea, stealing from Iranians and spending the stolen money in Syrai (to prop up murderous regime of Assad) and Lebanon (supporting terrorists) or Yemen while your people are suffering.  Either you are too scared to speak out worrying about yourself and find it safer to attack the already fallen regime and what they did some 65 years ago which makes you a coward Iranian citizen who does not care about his homeland and his people suffering right now or you are an anti-Iranian (like an arab or Palestinian) or you are a regime spoke person and a mercenary.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

How many times have you spoken out about atrocities being committed by THIS Islamic regime?? About what is going on right now NOT 65 years ago. How many times did you attack this regime for shooting peaceful demonstrators, beating up women who refuse to wear forced hijab, jailing human rights activists like Narin Sotoudeh  and her husband, jailing the union leaders, students, political opponents, environmentalists, women, workers, farmers ..... and killing them in jails. How many times you mentioned this occupying evil force destroying your homeland? Selling out land and sea, stealing from Iranians and spending the stolen money in Syrai (to prop up murderous regime of Assad) and Lebanon (supporting terrorists) or Yemen while your people are suffering.  Either you are too scared to speak out worrying about yourself and find it safer to attack the already fallen regime and what they did some 65 years ago which makes you a coward Iranian citizen who does not care about his homeland and his people suffering right now or you are an anti-Iranian (like an arab or Palestinian) or you are a regime spoke person and a mercenary.

I have never once defended the current Iranian regime. I have spoken against the Iranian regime many times on here. But it's not as much as you, because I don't see a point in preaching to the choir. I don't see anyone on this forum who disagrees that the mullahs need to go.

The way I approach this forum is by challenging those who are knowingly or unknowingly spreading false information. I also speak for those who are not able to defend themselves against propaganda like the Palestinians. Outside of this forum, I see Iranian regime operatives on Twitter and I have spoken against their propaganda. I have also seen MEK operatives on Twitter trying to spread false information. When I speak out against the Iranian regime, I am called an MEK agent. When I speak out against the MEK propagandists, I am called a regime agent. It's funny how that works. 

Then you have the Shah supporters who have a very difficult time admitting to the atrocities the Shah committed. Things were not so rosy. The Shah, with the help of the UK and US, removed Mossadegh and killed an opportunity for Iranians to experience democracy. True, the Shah was nationalistic, but he acted too late. By the time he grew a spine and signalled that he wanted to use the oil for the Iranian people, he had already lost the respect of majority of Iranians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, marcus said:

I have never once defended the current Iranian regime. I have spoken against the Iranian regime many times on here. But it's not as much as you, because I don't see a point in preaching to the choir. I don't see anyone on this forum who disagrees that the mullahs need to go.

The way I approach this forum is by challenging those who are knowingly or unknowingly spreading false information. I also speak for those who are not able to defend themselves against propaganda like the Palestinians. Outside of this forum, I see Iranian regime operatives on Twitter and I have spoken against their propaganda. I have also seen MEK operatives on Twitter trying to spread false information. When I speak out against the Iranian regime, I am called an MEK agent. When I speak out against the MEK propagandists, I am called a regime agent. It's funny how that works. 

Then you have the Shah supporters who have a very difficult time admitting to the atrocities the Shah committed. Things were not so rosy. The Shah, with the help of the UK and US, removed Mossadegh and killed an opportunity for Iranians to experience democracy. True, the Shah was nationalistic, but he acted too late. By the time he grew a spine and signalled that he wanted to use the oil for the Iranian people, he had already lost the respect of majority of Iranians.

Oh so you never defended this brutal fascist regime and that makes it all right!!!!!!!!!!. By echoing what the regime says (like how bad the previous regime was without mentioning how much worse this regime is) or exaggerating statements and lies (like Iran will become Syria if this brutal regime falls or Iran will disintegrate) and not saying much about the atrocities being committed by THIS regime you are in fact supporting this brutal regime. If you are doing this knowingly then you are a mercenary (either paid or unpaid) and if you are ding this unknowingly then you are no better than the crowd whom you called thugs a couple of months ago. You always go back 65 to 100 years and try to blame the past regime much more than you attack this regime who is committing so many atrocities against the people of your own blood RIGHT NOW as we speak.  This is not a history forum but a forum on current political affairs. This is absurd and unacceptable.

You have a lot more posts defending Palestinians than posts defending your own people suffering more than Palestinians under this Arab sympathizer regime . What reason do you have to support Arabs? Did they not invade Persia and imposed their religion by sword. Did they not called Khuzestan as Arabia and invaded in 1980 in order to take over this oil province for which a million of your people died defending? Do they not call Persian Gulf some other nonsense. Does the regime of mullahs not spending billions to support these bunch and the murderous regime of Assad while masses of Iranians are hungry and poor living under another murderous regime?. What the hell  is wrong with you. WAKE UP. Your own people are suffering much more than Palestinians and dying every day and you always post about Palestinians suffering!!!!!! You appear to be intelligent but are you blind???

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Not neutral enough for Stalin.

There are historical facts showing Iran’s neutrality during WWII. I don’t understand why you are questioning neutrality of Iran, where jews always existed since Achaemenid empires....

The british interest in operation countenance was to protect the oil fields in southern Iran against the Nazis, which is why the invasion took place from the south and Russians from the North. Iran wasn’t very keen (and quite understandably) to warm up to Russians, who were reluctant to leave the country and only by the persuasion of the UN in later years they left....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kactus said:

There are historical facts showing Iran’s neutrality during WWII. I don’t understand why you are questioning neutrality of Iran, where jews always existed since Achaemenid empires....

The british interest in operation countenance was to protect the oil fields in southern Iran against the Nazis, which is why the invasion took place from the south and Russians from the North. Iran wasn’t very keen (and quite understandably) to warm up to Russians, who were reluctant to leave the country and only by the persuasion of the UN in later years they left....

 

You can deny it happened all you like. But it happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You can deny it happened all you like. But it happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Glad that you admit even with your own link that it was indeed operation countenance as I had previously stated...

What your link fails to show is that since the invasion Iran took a hostile approach towards the Third Reich and the Hitler was carrying on with the programme of extermination of jews...

Your selective argument fails to show the dynamics of those relationships at WW2!

Here is an excerpt from an article from the holocaust museum.

 

Iranian Jews ruled by Reza Shah and later his son, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, enjoyed many rights and freedoms that they had not previously experienced, including relative cultural and religious autonomy, increased economic opportunities, and significant political rights. Jews also benefitted from the Pahlavi tilt towards a more secular domestic policy. The Iranian government informed the Germans that it considered Iranian Jews to be fully assimilated Iranians

 

And the article continues....

 

Reza Shah declared Iran neutral at the start of World War II. He feared both Soviet and British ambitions in his country and despite the benefits of economic relations with Germany, he considered Germany to be too committed to its program of race-based expansion and ideology.

 

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/iran-during-world-war-ii

Edited by kactus
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...