Yes. CIA and USA was responsible and the Shah and his lackeys were self-serving b@$tards who are way beneath depravity. Same way Indians admit depravity of their own countrymen while blaming the British. Your attempt to wash CIA's hands off the muck is laughable. Let us wait for 20 years and we will get more stories of such tactics played by the CIA.
Thugs can be, and usually are, countered with thugs or thug-like responses, like a baton to the head or high pressure water hoses. But revolutions cannot happen without complicit and hidden facilitation from at least a few high government and high society sympathizers whose wealth, in both political and financial resources, and exploitation of their positions to affect changes beyond the streets.
I'm not sure if you can read this or not because there are internet restrictions in Iran. I hope you can see the exposure.
The reason why US, France and Britain were behind the Iranian revolution because they need to spread sectarianism to destablize the Muslim countries, particularly the Middle East in order to benefit Israel's interest so the more Suuni-Shia rift, the better protection Israel will gain and the West main interest is placing Muslim countries under Safavid rule, during Khomenie's revolutionary speech about the threats against Arabs and Muslims alarmed the Gulf leaders and Saddam Hussein. The Shah, Muhammad Pahlavi was truly not 'religious' and and was not a puppet of the West.
Due to Pahlavi's exposure against Britain and Israel in the media, it alarmed them. So they decided to get rid of him and installed Khomenie who was a British agent, even according to the French journalist who spoke to Shah before the revolution said shah said angrily "that man is not an Iranian!" then said "He is a Indian". Reportedly, Khomeini was not Iranian. He "was neither born (in Iran) nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally." Khomeini's mother was a Kashmiri Indian. Reportedly, a story was invented that Khomeini had a Kashmiri Indian father with Iranian origins. The Iranian Senator Moussavi knew Khomeini's real father. Reportedly Khomeini had Moussavi killed. So, they sent Khomenie from France to Tehran. “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint,” said Andrew Young, Carter’s ambassador to the UN.
Pahlavi had an interview with Mike Wallace, he desn’t sound like a very obedient dictator anymore, does he?
And there is the sister of the “Great Satan”, the UK. The Shah during the last stage of his regin was not very keen on them either.
Had Shah existed and no revolution in Iran, there would be no Iran-Iraq war, Gulf-Iran proxies, Iraqi or Afghanistan invasion as Shah would refuse to open a front for the West. He would allow 'freedom' for the Suunah in Iran, like I said the Shah reign was 'secular' and he doesn't care about religion. Austria said; Ferdinand, the ambassador to the Austrian King remarked, “Had it not been for the (Shi’ite) Safavids in Iran, we would have been reading the Qur’an this day like the Algerians,” meaning that his nation would have been conquered by the Ottoman Muslims. But it was the Safavid state that kept the Ottoman state busy with fighting the Safavids, instead of the crusaders. Referring before Shah came to power. Let me tell you something about how Safavids rised after Saddam's downfall.
'They are the greatest of the followers of desires in both ignorance and oppression, they show enmity toward the best of the Awliyaa of Allah, the most high, from those after the Prophets, among the foremost (in faith) amongst the muhajireen and ansar and those who followed them in goodness - may Allah please with them, and they be pleased with him - and they ally with the disbelievers, hypcrites, Jews, Christians, the Pagans and the various factions of the Malaahidah (disblievers heretics) such as the Nusayriyyah, the Ismaaeeliyyah and others from astray ones. [Al-Mindnaj 1/20 by Shaikh Al Islam, Abdul-Abbas Ibn Taimiyyah, the Shami]
If you're misunderstanding the whole context, let me know because I learnt about Shah of Iran, 1979 Iranian revolution and how Khomenie came to power.
Iranians now days are probably giving up Religious based nonsense and embrace the 21st century instead of being an Sunni and salafi nut jobs paradise like Egypt.
I'm not sure if you can read this or not because there are internet restrictions in Iran. I hope you can see the exposure.
The reason why US, France and Britain were behind the Iranian revolution because they need to spread sectarianism to destablize the Muslim countries, particularly the Middle East in order to benefit Israel's interest so the more Suuni-Shia rift, the better protection Israel will gain and the West main interest is placing Muslim countries under Safavid rule, during Khomenie's revolutionary speech about the threats against Arabs and Muslims alarmed the Gulf leaders and Saddam Hussein. The Shah, Muhammad Pahlavi was truly not 'religious' and and was not a puppet of the West.
Due to Pahlavi's exposure against Britain and Israel in the media, it alarmed them. So they decided to get rid of him and installed Khomenie who was a British agent, even according to the French journalist who spoke to Shah before the revolution said shah said angrily "that man is not an Iranian!" then said "He is a Indian". Reportedly, Khomeini was not Iranian. He "was neither born (in Iran) nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally." Khomeini's mother was a Kashmiri Indian. Reportedly, a story was invented that Khomeini had a Kashmiri Indian father with Iranian origins. The Iranian Senator Moussavi knew Khomeini's real father. Reportedly Khomeini had Moussavi killed. So, they sent Khomenie from France to Tehran. “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint,” said Andrew Young, Carter’s ambassador to the UN.
Pahlavi had an interview with Mike Wallace, he desn’t sound like a very obedient dictator anymore, does he?
And there is the sister of the “Great Satan”, the UK. The Shah during the last stage of his regin was not very keen on them either.
Had Shah existed and no revolution in Iran, there would be no Iran-Iraq war, Gulf-Iran proxies, Iraqi or Afghanistan invasion as Shah would refuse to open a front for the West. He would allow 'freedom' for the Suunah in Iran, like I said the Shah reign was 'secular' and he doesn't care about religion. Austria said; Ferdinand, the ambassador to the Austrian King remarked, “Had it not been for the (Shi’ite) Safavids in Iran, we would have been reading the Qur’an this day like the Algerians,” meaning that his nation would have been conquered by the Ottoman Muslims. But it was the Safavid state that kept the Ottoman state busy with fighting the Safavids, instead of the crusaders. Referring before Shah came to power. Let me tell you something about how Safavids rised after Saddam's downfall.
'They are the greatest of the followers of desires in both ignorance and oppression, they show enmity toward the best of the Awliyaa of Allah, the most high, from those after the Prophets, among the foremost (in faith) amongst the muhajireen and ansar and those who followed them in goodness - may Allah please with them, and they be pleased with him - and they ally with the disbelievers, hypcrites, Jews, Christians, the Pagans and the various factions of the Malaahidah (disblievers heretics) such as the Nusayriyyah, the Ismaaeeliyyah and others from astray ones. [Al-Mindnaj 1/20 by Shaikh Al Islam, Abdul-Abbas Ibn Taimiyyah, the Shami]
If you're misunderstanding the whole context, let me know because I learnt about Shah of Iran, 1979 Iranian revolution and how Khomenie came to power.
