Lobbying is a trade. Some States resort to it so to better their image. Indeed we can see journalists swooning over the above suspicion freedom space into some Arab countries. Everything there is so beautiful and kind, modern… Such undertaking appears to be doubly gobstopper because we guess that the concerned State has things to feel guilty about and we identify the author of the words as a person who lacks of objectivity. The mullahs’ regime, double speech great follower, found better than this : people who introduce themselves as outsiders of regime, even as opponents, who hold forth on the situation with an objective approach and who mix pros and cons before they tell as a conclusion an objective point of view that matches by chance with Tehran expectations. The result is a speech that appears full of contradictions which seems hard to decipher. However, if we read this at a closer range, no word is left to chance ; each paragraph leads to a simple idea. The sum of those milestone ideas will suggest the final conclusion which needs to appear as evidence. That’s why we decided to comment Gharavi’s text paragraph per paragraph in order to shed light on the key-words of his speech. At last, we’ll tell about the author’s past which is an additional proof that there’s no room for chance in what emanates from Tehran.

"The Iranian revolution has lasted now for 31 years. Its benefits are underrated". This is the way Mr. Hamid Gharavi’s text starts. Short sentences. One simple piece of information per sentence. There’s after a series of short and even shortened information that is formulated as if it was a slogan. Besides the first short information appears in the first sentence because it’s question of the Iranian revolution and not of the Islamic revolution. The next milestone idea is developed in the first paragraph which is dedicated to the Pahlavi Dynasty. It is written that the Shah and his father both acceded to power via a coup, the father in 1921 and the son in 1953. This is an introduction about their illegitimacy that is supposed to legitimate the Iranian -and Islamic- revolution.

This is such a fine brainwave but this affirmation is fanciful because 1921 coup wasn’t made by the future Reza Shah but by Seyyed Ziaeddine Tabatabai and moreover this coup didn’t overthrow the Qajars and the King Ahmad Shah : the coup initiators asked the king to form a nationalist government that would not be easy-going. In this government, Reza Khan Mirpanj -the future Reza Shah- acted as the Minister of War before he was named Prime Minister by Ahmad Shah in October 1923 shortly before the latter left the country. After two years of absence, the Parliament panicked at the behaviour of this king who was not greatly interested in affairs and who was known to receive spend money from British people and it asked for his destitution and the dissolution of the dynasty on the 31 October 1925. Then the Prime Minister wanted to proclaim a republic but the Parliament acted in a way to make him accept to found a new dynasty and become the King of the Kings, the official title of the Iranian sovereign according to 1906 constitution. After a vote that counted 115 votes for, 5 votes against -among them a certain Qajar prince Mossadegh- and 30 abstentions, on the 12 December, the Parliament announced the creation of a new dynasty and on the 25 April 1926, Reza Khan Mirpanj was crowned under the name of Reza Pahlavi in reference to the language of the founders of the Persian empire. No slaughter of Qajar princes took place : the latter integrated the political arena in order to pursue a great career. Thus the Pahlavi Dynasty was not founded thanks to a putsch in 1921. In addition, during his 16 years reign, Reza Shah transformed the country through large-scale social reforms, such as female emancipation or even education and justice secularisation, which put an end to the Sharia enforcement. Beloved Mossadegh has always tried to block such initiative because he was during his entire career hostile to any reform. Indeed Reza Shah created basic industries and appeared as the first one to question the British grip on Iranian oil wealth. Such contesting earned him the invasion of Iran and his forced destitution. Indeed, Reza Shah didn’t came to power by force but he was toppled by a putsch. British who were then the leaders of the country tried to force the Parliament to declare the dissolution of the Pahlavi Dynasty and the restoration of the Qajar Dynasty. But their efforts failed thanks to the Prime Minister Foroughi who stemmed nonetheless from Qajar people and who appeared as a great adversary of the deposed king. Under his aegis and with the company of some guards, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi who was under the British threat could go to the Parliament which proclaimed him King of the Kings, future sovereign of the Pahlavi Dynasty. This was a takeover by force but it was against the invader’s will.

In accordance with the powers he was granted by 1906 constitution, Mohammad-Reza Shah was then able to play a much active role, such as his father did, but he didn’t resort to those powers as he contented himself with reigning and not governing. He left the power to his ministers who stemmed generally from the Qajar Dynasty, those men who often intrigued so to overthrow him and restore their lineage. On this account, we can quote the Qajar prince Ghavam who was supported by Washington or even the General Razmara who used to cook something up with British and Soviets and who was killed by the first ones with the help of the Islam Fedaian, Khomeini’s inspirers. Of this stunning time which was dominated by the great power which were interested in Iranian oil, the West solely remembers Mossadegh’s name as a democrat person who was overthrown by the Shah in 1953 all he more that the latter used to be one of those Prime Ministers who were linked with a foreign power -Americans against British. Mossadegh wasn’t overthrown by the Shah on the 15 August 1953. It’s the contrary that happened instead. He didn’t succeed to make his takeover by force two days before on the 15 August 1953 with the support of communist officers and the mullahs who were then the leaders of the street and of the Bazaar. Mossadegh fell because 48 hours after the coup, the mullahs withdrawn their support for fear of seeing Iran going over the East and being slaughtered by communists. Thus he was dismissed, judged and exiled on his landlord lands, which is not the fate which is meant for the putschist who failed.

Those facts are known by Mr. Gharavi but he keeps quiet about them in order to associate both kings of the Pahlavi Dynasty to the notion of coup, tyranny, power usurpation so to make the Islamist revolutionary coalition of 1979 become the liberators who came to restore the democratic legality.

Here it appears simple ! The theory of Mr. Gharavi is that the revolutionaries assume the heritage of the past ! The nuclear program ? It was the Shah’s work ! The interference in Lebanon, the Hezbollah ? A heritage of the aggressiveness of the Persian Empire ! The Shah himself occupied the islands of the Persian Gulf. According to Gharavi, every problem comes from the past heavy heritage ! Thus this would be a curse and we don’t know how a laic revolution whose promises were laic and whose leader was laic, Khomeini, who named after his victory a government that was firstly laic, became progressively an Islamic Republic !

Let’s resume point after point. Regarding nuclear field, Gharavi forgot to specify that the Shah entrusted France with enrichment, which is what the latter offered to do recently but the mullahs denied it. Mr. Gharavi displays some dishonesty because he forgets to specify that the Shah made a resolution be adopted by the UNO in favour of the nuclear disarmament of the Middle-East.

Regarding relations with the neighbours, Gharavi forgets to specify that the islands he quotes were always listed as Iranian islands in history books and the Shah he accuses of every trouble didn’t preserve by force the Iranian stranglehold on Bahrain and he let its inhabitants decide on their future via a referendum, which is contrary to any form of interference or aggressiveness.

At last, regarding political tolerance, Mr. Gharavi forgets to specify that the opposition against the Shah was coming from those mullahs, who were hostile to any reform, and from their Islamic-Marxist tiny groups, followers of armed actions and assassinations. Besides, right after a bomb attack the communists fomented against him, the Shah named Parviz Nik-Khah, one of the planners and leaders of the communist students in Europe, at the head of a commission that was aimed at political innovation… This is not at all in accordance with his theory.

Actually, there’s no curse at all, no penalizing heritage and this revolution did no progressive slip-up : the adjective Islamic -just before the word Republic- appeared in the first version of the regime’s constitution which was written in Paris by Nehzat Azadi-linked lawyers and by the MKO, the much Islamist element of this revolution. There was never any denied laic promise, contrary to what is mentioned by Mr. Gharavi.

The entire drifting appears in this text in which, in the first third part, the author passes progressively from the reproaches he directs at the regime about its identity, its past, its nuclear management, its interference in Lebanon, its financing of anti-Western terrorism to a speech about its much democratic, laic and pro-Western nature ; the both remaining third parts of the text were written to speak in the favour of the rescue of such a wonderful ally.

The speech for the defence | This is funny. At the beginning of the text, sentences are short and ideas appear clear because it’s question of smearing the past in order to exonerate the Islamic revolution. But as this smooth talker goes along and carries out this incredible slip-up, sentences become longer and even more nebulous. It’s normal ; the topic is not obvious because right after he exposes in detail the incomprehensible drifting of this so-called laic revolution, the essayist lawyer states that the current rulers are behind any betrayal and they realized lately that to keep the power, it was necessary to revive the revolution’s laic promises ! According to him, it would be irrelevant to sanction them because they would feel discouraged. It would be better to reward them by enhancing -commercial- cooperation and even by integrating them -as permanent members- to the Security Council ! If this chance would be eluded, there would be then a risk of confrontation which would result in the region’s destabilization -the blackmail about the disruption of Europe’s oil supply. Thus this is a historical opportunity, according to Mr. Gharavi, but we would need men with guts and talent.

Talent is mostly proper to Mr. Gharavi because as you know it already, the permanent members of the Security Council have the right to dispose of atomic arsenal. This request is just a new version of the right of enrichment and even the right to obtain the bomb. Besides such integration to the Security Council has appeared in the list of the regime’s demands since two years and its goal is to give to the mullahs the anti-Israeli or anti-American power of veto. Thus they would be certain to get the absolute leadership of the Arab street, a leadership that would become explosive with the right of a bomb. Thus laic and pro-Western promises which never existed have little chance to be revived. But we may end up with even more hysterical mullahs.

This is such a great stake for the mullahs. But no matter what is the author’s talent, it’s obvious that the people in high places won’t let the mullahs fool them. Actually this text isn’t addressed to them but to businessmen and big companies in order to take over from Tehran’s requests. This explains why Mr. Gharavi signed this document because he is not anybody.

In Le Figaro, Gharavi plays it modestly when he gives his identity. He is not a simple lawyer of the Paris and New York Bars who would be attached to freedom and secularity but he is a lawyer whose name appears in the list of experts who are entitled to the Iranian Chamber of Commerce, an institution which supervises the mullahs’ money laundering networks, the shady affairs, the bribes, the purchases of prohibited goods, and this makes it appear as the true Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However Mr. Gharavi is not an expert among many others into this opaque institution of the mullahs’ regime because he has also a sit in the Commission of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce ! Mr. Gharavi is for intelligence a trustworthy man. Besides he was behind a historical meeting on the 2 September 2007 between Nahavandian, the president of the Commission of Arbitration of the Iranian Chamber of Commerce, and Pierre Tercier, the president of the Commission of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce ! He is a man with a great network and a man with no qualms. Danger !

© WWW.IRAN-RESIST.ORG
All our articles in English...