Enemy of the US State Dept!

Darya Safai, shown in the picture on the left, is a passionate Iran volleyball fan, who attends all the Iran international volleyball matches played outside Iran. As well as an enthusiastic volleyball fan, Darya is also a tireless peaceful civil rights campaigner for Iranian women to be allowed to enter the volleyball stadiums in Iran. A basic right that has been denied to Iranian women in recent years.

Darya is often seen amongst the spectators, holding a placard raising awareness about the plight of Iranian women and their right to enter volleyball stadiums. This weekend, she hit the international news headlines again:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympic-officials-to-iranian-fan-take-down-sign-or-leave-194533334.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37075735

http://summergames.ap.org/article/olympic-security-asks-female-iranian-fan-drop-sign

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3739126/Olympic-security-asks-female-Iranian-fan-drop-sign.html

http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-37077792

...

Apart from an ardent volleyball fan and women's rights campaigner, Darya is also a successful dentist, a wife, a mother of two children, and a very charming pleasant woman, but she is also, it seems, an enemy of the US State Department which is trying to cuddle up to the Islamic Republic of Iran by what the US State Dept likes to think of as its "Volleyball Diplomacy" with Iran - a crass replica of the "ping-pong" diplomacy with China, in yet another pathetic attempt to "change the behaviour of the Iranian regime"!

Greg Sullivan pursuing
his Volleyball Diplomacy

In 2014, when Iran volleyball team played a friendly match against the US, Greg Sullivan, [seen in the photo] from the US State Dept, hoping that he would win favours from the Islamic Republic, sent a "warning" to Lori Okimura, chairwoman of USA Volleyball federation, that some kind of violent disruptive Iranian saboteur will be attending the match!

Okimura had the impression, based on the State Department's message, that Darya was an "agitator of sorts who could potentially cause trouble" but when Okimura met Darya, she realised the US State Dept warning could not have been further from the truth.

During that friendly match, Okimura had her first run-in with Iranian gender politics. At the State Department's request, according to Okimura, USA Volleyball flew in a male delegate from its headquarters in Colorado Springs for the various ceremonial gatherings between Iranian and American officials, effectively replacing Okimura due to her gender, even though she lives in the Los Angeles area. "When they found out that the president of USA Volleyball was a woman," Okimura recalled, "they asked for the other guy."

This is the sad state of affairs after 8 years of Obama administration, that a secular women's rights and peaceful civil rights activist is seen as a threat and the Mullahs in Iran along with their Shia militia in Iraq are regarded by the US State Dept as their new allies!!

US ally enjoying the warmth of flames from a burning human

Enemy of the US State Dept!

Darya Safai, shown in the picture on the left, is a passionate Iran volleyball fan, who attends all the Iran international volleyball matches played outside Iran. As well as an enthusiastic volleyball fan, Darya is also a tireless peaceful civil rights campaigner for Iranian women to be allowed to enter the volleyball stadiums in Iran. A basic right that has been denied to Iranian women in recent years.

Darya is often seen amongst the crowds, holding a placard that raises awareness about such a basic right being denied to the Iranian women. This weekend, she hit the international news headlines again:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympic-officials-to-iranian-fan-take-down-sign-or-leave-194533334.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37075735

http://summergames.ap.org/article/olympic-security-asks-female-iranian-fan-drop-sign

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3739126/Olympic-security-asks-female-Iranian-fan-drop-sign.html

http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-37077792

...

Apart from an ardent volleyball fan and women's rights campaigner, Darya is also a successful dentist, a wife, a mother of two children, and a very charming pleasant woman, but she is also, it seems, an enemy of the US State Department which is trying to cuddle up to the Islamic Republic by what the US State Dept likes to think of as its "Volleyball Diplomacy" with Iran - a crass replica of the "ping-pong" diplomacy with China, in order to "change the behaviour of the Iranian regime"!

Greg Sullivan pursuing
his Volleyball Diplomacy

In 2014, when Iran volleyball team played a friendly match against the US, Greg Sullivan, [seen in the photo] from the US State Dept, hoping that he would win favours from the Islamic Republic, sent a "warning" to Lori Okimura, chairwoman of USA Volleyball federation, that some kind of violent disruptive Iranian saboteur will be attending the match!


Okimura had the impression, based on the State Department's message, that Darya was an "agitator of sorts who could potentially cause trouble" but when Okimura met Darya, she realised the US State Dept warning could not have been further from the truth.

During that friendly match, Okimura had her first run-in with Iranian gender politics. At the State Department's request, according to Okimura, USA Volleyball flew in a male delegate from its headquarters in Colorado Springs for the various ceremonial gatherings between Iranian and American officials, effectively replacing Okimura due to her gender, even though she lives in the Los Angeles area. "When they found out that the president of USA Volleyball was a woman," Okimura recalled, "they asked for the other guy."

This is the sad state of affairs after 8 years of Obama administration, that a secular women's rights and peaceful civil rights activist is seen as a threat and the Mullahs in Iran along with their Shia militia in Iraq are regarded by the US State Dept as their allies!!

US ally enjoying the warmth of flames from a burning human

Nasrollah on Hezbollah's funding v What John Kerry Ass-U-Me-s?

Below are excerpts from Nasrollah's speech made to mark the 40th day, a Shia tradition after someone dies, for Mustafa Badreddine's death:

"Some in the media were hopeful and were saying that Hezbollah is facing a financial crisis and has lost its position in Lebanon

Sanctions against Hezbollah are useless

Our budget, expenses, food, missiles, weapons, and everything else all comes to us from Iran

As long as Iran has money, we too have money

Hezbollah has no business plans or investment centres

The money allocated for us, does not come to us directly, neither through banks,  just like we get the missiles with which we threaten Israel with

Hezbollah is grateful to Iran’s Supreme Leader, the president, the administration, the Majlis, Grand Ayatollahs and the honourable people of Iran for supporting our resistance, Iran’s support continues and we have no financial problems"

And here is what John Kerry ass-u-me-s :

With "Moderates" like this, who needs a "hardliner"?!

The Western media headlines of "Moderates Swept to Victory in Iran Elections" was baffling to many who follow Iran news closely and have a better understanding of what is going on and who is who in Iran. Of course since the New York Times Interview with Ben Rhodes, now we know about his "echo chamber" lapdogs, the Laura Rozens and Barbara Slavins, and the "narratives" they were supposed to produce. And so the narrative for the recent Iran "elections" was supposed to be something along the lines of 'because of the nuclear deal, Iran's moderates have received a huge boost and it was a big set back for the hardliners!'..yeah right!!

I have written before about this 'good cop/bad cop'  game the Islamic Republic plays with its moderates v hardliners, much in tune with how the KGB used to play it in Romania under Ceausescu,  and also how former murderers and paedophiles were re-branded as "moderates" in the last Iran election game. So just to hammer the point home a bit further, I thought I share with you this footage of Isfahan Friday Prayer leader, Ayatollah Tabatabaei-Nejad's sermon, made last Friday.
This very Ayatollah was one of the nominees for Iran's "reformist" list of candidates that the BBC Persian "Iran analysts" were recommending the people of Iran to vote for! His victory to represent Isfahan in the Assembly of Experts was hailed as a triumph for Iran's "reform" movement!

Here is the footage below, followed by the translation of the sermon below. Judge for yourself, with "moderates" like this, who needs "hardliners"?!

Translation:

"They have brought me pictures yesterday that shows women by the side of this dry river [Zayandeh-rood], whose actions will ensure the upper stream of the river will become dry too. Believe me its true! You may ask yourself why do European countries with so much crime and sin have so much rainfall? Yes the Koran says we do not punish the unbelievers, and even if it didn't cause Muslims so much anxiety we would make their [kuffar] roofs made out of gold, God punishes the believer, God punishes the Isfahani, for remaining silent and letting girls and women take pictures by the river as if they were in European countries, you expect the representative of the Supreme Leader to do it all by himself? I tell you he won't.

Even when Imam Ali, saw the people were not backing him, he sat in his house and stood silent against all the crimes that were taking place around him, if we dont have the people's backing our hands are tied! Neither the Supreme Leader, nor his representative nor the Law Enforcement Forces which I must thank..I get reports of what they do, they do a lot, they stop a lot of cars [women driving cars with loose hejab], they stop people walking dogs, but thats not enough, they need your help.. Imam Khomeini started the cultural revolution, and they have meetings and say some things, but whats the point? its all talk and meetings, my beloved ones, the principle of promoting virtue and preventing vice is not specific to the Supreme Leader or a specified official, everyone has the duty to do it, just like you have the duty to fast, as soon as you walk out of your house you should tell your daughter, your neighbour etc. what is virtue and what is vice

What our great Imam Khomeini once told us was 'what scares us is cultural dependence and not sanctions or military invasion' and so we shouldn't fear sanctions or military invasion but we should fear cultural invasion, it will destroy our revolution and the blood of our martyrs will go to waste, we must not make excuses like 'oh I told that woman but she stood up to me!" so what if she stood up to you? You stand up to her too!

I am not saying beat her up, but do tell her!

they tell me in some of these social media sites, they have formed groups who call themselves fast-breakers! they message each other and ask to see each other breaking their fasts by showing what they are eating for lunch! This is standing up to religion, these are hypocrites!

Or another one has set up a group against Hejab and they ask each other to send their pictures with no hejab. they say they have 1500 members!

I here by tell the Telecommunications company, if you can identify these people but are not after them, then you are traitors to Islam!

These people who confront the fasting and confront the Hejab are hypocrites and hypocrites are worse than Kuffar! they should be arrested and not released soon!

I asked and the communication company said they can find these people, well find them! shut them up! strangle them! we can't just sit still and say such things are taking place! and just kiss our teeth in disapproval!"

How Times Change - The Secular Iran in 1930s

BBC Persian's revelation of a letter from Ayatollah Khomeini to president Kennedy in 1963, pledging that he would look after US interests in Iran and would not try to export the revolution, prompted me to read the whole 86 page document, "CIA report, Islam in Iran, March 1980, Secret, CREST".


The document is a summary of the role of Islam in Iran in recent history. What prompted my interest was a section in the beginning of the document, which described how secular Iran had become in the 1920-1930s.

The document describes an American Christian minister who had approached Reza Shah the Great's court minister, Teymourtash, seeking his consent for sending missionaries to Iran and setting up schools there.

Teymourtash's reply was:
"Iran is trying to get rid of religion in its own schools" and further asks "How would you like it, if we bundled up a crowd of moth-eaten mullahs and sent them to America to open up schools there?"

Nearly hundred years on, it seems that is exactly what has happened. Lots of "moth-eaten" mullahs have been sent to Europe and America, facilitated by Leftards and useful idiots, to set up schools and it seems at the end, Islam will be victorious and take over!

Below is a picture of Teymourtash and a picture of a "moth-eaten" mullah who opposed Reza Shah the Great:

Appeasement of the Mullahs, Like Father, Like Son?!

General Hassan Pakravan, the second chief of the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, had all the pedigrees needed to be regarded as an Iranian silver spoon fed aristocrat. His father was the governor of Khorasan province, amongst his many other titles and his mother, partly of European descent, was related to the Habsburg rulers of the Austro-Hungar empire. Pakravan studied most of his childhood and youth, studying abroad and finally graduated from the artillery school in Poitiers, France, and the Ecole d’Application d’Artillerie in Fontainebleau.

Pakravan was appointed as the second chief of the Shah's secret police, better known by its acronym, SAVAK, after its first appointed chief, Teimour Bakhtiar, was removed when he became too ambitious and wanted to rule Iran himself.

Pakravan's soft and compassionate nature was hardly suitable for someone who was supposed to lead a secret police organisation, he would have been more at home had he been appointed as the director of an art gallery or the national opera.

It was during Pakravan's time as the chief of SAVAK, that Khomeini was arrested. Orders had come from the then Prime Minister, Assadollah Alam, to arrest Khomeini for instigating a bloody riot that opposed the Shah's progressive reforms such as replacing the feudal land ownership and granting universal suffrage to women and the religious minorities of Iran.

During the time Khomeini was under house arrest in Tehran, General Pakravan visited him every week for lunch. According to Pakravan's wife, this was something Khomeini looked forward to and would say: "Timsar [General], I count the days to our lunches together." Pakravan, on the other hand, was literally petrified of Khomeini and totally awestruck by this stern puritan Shia cleric. "He makes my hair stand on end. It is frightening," Pakravan told his wife about his impression of Khomeini.

When Khomeini was sentenced to death, General Pakravan, became upset and felt sorry for his weekly luncheon companion and missed their conversations about religion and philosophy. The Shah's General and head of the "bad, bad brutal" SAVAK decided he had to save his "friend". Perhaps he was hoping that by continuing his luncheon dialogues, he would change the Ayatollah's behaviour!

Pakravan contacted the moderate, also soft natured, Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari and asked for his help. Ayatollah Shariatmadari issued a decree that promoted Khomeini to an Ayatollah and Pakravan then convinced the Shah that he should not have an Ayatollah executed. Pakravan thus saved Khomeini's life and furthermore asked Turkey to grant asylum to Khomeini.

Not that Khomeini showed any gratitude either to Pakravan or to Ayatollah Shariatmadari after he seized power. General Pakravan was amongst the first of the Shah's officials to be executed after the 1979 revolution had triumphed. Ayatollah Shariatmadari was also eventually put under house arrest and denied medical care, until he died in miserable conditions on 3rd April, 1986.

The fruit has not fallen far from the tree as it appears that General Pakravan's son, Dr. Karim Pakravan, is now continuing the same futile path of appeasement of the mullahs in Iran and has become a key fundraiser and advisor to NIAC, the lobby organisation that advocates appeasement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Lets hope Karim Pakravan does not end up having the same fate as his father or help more extremists come to power like his father did!

Urmia Majlis deputy tells his constituency why they should re-elect him

Urumia, NW Iran, is the second largest city in the Iranian Azerbaijan and is the capital of West Azerbaijan. It is facing an environmental disaster as a result of Lake Urumia, the sixth largest saltwater lake on earth, drying up. You would think in a normal parliamentary election campaign rally, the sitting deputy's priority and that of his constituency supporters would be talking about how to prevent this looming calamity from happening.

The video below, which went viral on the Iranian social media, is that of Nader Ghazipour, who was re-elected last week, talking in Azeri to his supporters during an election campaign rally. Far from having any concerns about the Lake Urumia, Ghazipour is more keen on displaying his self styled manly traits to win the votes.

Read the translation below the video, to see how Ghazipour appeals to his supporters:

"I only respect one person in Tehran, and that is none other than our Supreme Leader. May God give him a long life [crowds cheer] - I am not the president's lackey, because I am the people's servant. I have been elected with the people's vote. In just 2 hours you have given me 200,000 votes. You have sharpened me to fight them. A boy was being circumcised and a girl on the other side was crying. They asked her why are you crying? She said they are sharpening him for me! [crowds cheer]

bullies have had their day. The era of tyranny is over, people have been freed, we have had a revolution, God brought Imam Khomeini for us. May God bless his two sons who have passed away. Let me tell you a recollection from the war. We took over the hills and positioned ourselves in the Iraqi trenches. It was 10 O'clock, I asked for 12 volunteers, 22 people volunteered, I said "I only want 12", they were fighting over it. I chose all the Azeris from amongst them, 13 Azeris including myself. We approached the Al-Amareh-Basra road, we faced 600-700 Iraqis, they all surrendered but we didn't have the means to keep them as prisoners, so we killed them all [crowds cheer].

May be there is no one amongst you who has ever had to chop the head of a chicken or a sheep, but I had to do it for the revolution, for Islam and for the martyrs [crowds cheer].

I set 700-800 tanks and armoured carriers on fire. Orders, came by noon that we should get back to our positions. We didn't get to where we are in this country to hand it over to kids and foxes. The Majlis is not the place for babies and donkeys [crowds cheer].

Majlis is no place for women, Majlis is for men [crowds cheer] You send women to Majlis, they will do things to them and bring shame on you, [crowds laugh].

Sheikh Ghodratollah Alikhani, was the deputy for Qazvin. Even if he said hello to the other deputies, they would be scared of him, he was after all the deputy for Qazvin [crowds laugh] - Qazvin is the butt of jokes in Iran for homosexual jokes - they told me Alikhani is in the toilets once, I went in there saw him bending over and jumped on his back [crowds laugh] I grabbed him so hard, he feinted on the floor [crowds laugh] listen...quiet...

A week later he saw me in the Majlis, so he showed his side to all the others and said "Look what Ghazipour did to me", I said "why don't you show them your other part [arse] for them so they can really see what I did to you" [crowds laugh] Brothers, Majlis is not a place for poofs [crowds cheer] "

Sheikh Ghodrat Alikhani whom
Ghazipour claims to have violated

The election campaign speech finishes by Ghazipour saying how proud he is of his Azeri accent and those deputies who claim to be educated and have PHDs have mostly obtained those fancy titles with fake certificates after the revolution.

UCL's Marxist Lecturer on BBC Persian!

 I often wonder if the poor UK tax payer has any idea where his or her hard earned money ends up and the upkeep of what kind of institutions and people is maintained through the taxes they pay.

Well here is one example in this video. The person being interviewed is the Marxist UCL lecturer and member of the Socialist Workers Party, Ali Alizadeh.

The interview is taking place on BBC Persian and this is what he is saying:
"we need both factions [hardliners & reformists] in Iran, because the hardliners are the ones fighting in Syria and are defending the security of Iran. We don't want to eliminate the hardliners. If we have a red line in Iran, its with those people who under the Israeli, Saudi and US flags were planning economic and military attack on Iran. We can live with the likes of Jannati and Messbah Yazdi but with those people, never!"

Don't get too taken up by his typical Leftard way of accusing Iranian secular liberals with being under the Israeli, Saudi and US flags, that's just typical Leftist politics. They live in the West, enjoy the privileges provided in the West themselves, and yet accuse others who are happy to live in a Western democracy as being under Israeli, US flag wanting to invade Iran. Pathetic Leftist tactics to throw mud at their enemy.

And I wonder if this Marxist lecturer at the University College of London, who is poisoning the minds of hundreds of UK students, realises where he is living and who he has had to flee from and whether he really thinks the Iranian hardliners, who killed thousands of Marxists, are happy for an atheist effeminate looking bourgeoise Marxist, like him to live amongst them as he claims he wishes to live amongst them?!

BBC4's Disinformation-mentary

USSR's infamous security agency, the KGB, were known for their mastery in spreading disinformation, but BBC4's version of the Shah's 2500 year celebrations ceremony of Iranian history, was definitely vintage KGB disinformation.

Just as in any successful KGB disinformation campaign, you need to spread a myth by telling lots of half truths first, i.e. tell part of the story but not the whole story in order to mislead the public opinion stealthily.

The objective of the so called documentary was simple, viewers should conclude that the people of Iran were starving, yet the Shah of Iran had rather spend a fortune on a lavish banquet than feed his own people!

Pivotal to building such disinformation is of course to induce in the mind of the viewer  a wild exaggeration of the cost of the celebrations. In order to answer such vital question, the BBC conveniently doesn't ask the project manager of the event, Abdolreza Ansari, about the costs, even though he was available and is featured in the same documentary. Instead a figure of $650 Million is dished out, by the first president of the Islamic Republic, Bani-Sadr, who was toppled half way through his presidency and now lives in exile in Paris. How could Bani-Sadr have known what the cost of the celebrations came to? He had nothing to do with the organisation of the ceremonies. He was not even in Iran at the time, but plotting to overthrow the Shah with the help of Syria's dictator, Hafiz Assad.

Fortunately, the project manager of the 2500 year spectacular celebrations of Iran's history has been on the record in the past and has stated the cost of the ceremonies, both in an interview with Cyrus Kadivar and in a much more balanced documentary aired on Manoto TV.  The total cost of the celebrations was in fact $22 Million!
"One third of the money was raised by Iranian industrialists to pay for all the festivities. Another third was from the budget of the Ministry of Court and went to pay for the Tent City. The rest of the money came from the original budget under Senator Amir Homayoun which he had invested in 1960 and was spent on the building of the Shahyad tower" - Interview with Abdolreza Ansari by Cyrus Kadivar.

BBC4's Storyville also conveniently forgets to make any comparisons with other celebrations, such as the French government's $200 million celebration of the 200th anniversary of the fall of the Bastille or perhaps more suitably with what has been spent by the Islamic Republic of Iran on Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum, the most opulent mausoleum in the world!

Of course there were people living in poverty in Iran when the 2500 year celebrations ceremony was taking place, just like there were people living in abject poverty in France during the 200th anniversary of the fall of Bastille celebrations and just like between 44.5 - 55% of Iran's urban population alone, according to a recent report titled 'Measurement and Economic Analysis of Urban Poverty', lives below the poverty line in the Islamic Republic of Iran today. But the BBC won't make a documentary on the most costly and opulent mausoleum in the world for Ayatollah Khomeini while there is so much growing poverty in Iran. After all, that may displease the Islamic Republic authorities,  the consequences of which could be the closure of the BBC offices in Iran!

Had the Shah spent the $22 Million cost of the celebrations on feeding the poor people, would that have improved the under-developed parts of Iran? Instead the Shah used the money to promote a magical country steeped in history to the rest of the world. The ceremonies showed the rest of the world Iran's growing confidence in itself and a country with a stable foreign policy of co-existence with the rest of the world which was able  to gather heads of states from all around the world. Would this not have brought about more investment, more trade and improved the living standards of the Iranians? As the English proverb says "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".

Throughout the documentary there are more truths that are conveniently not told. The program director for example, Hassan Amini, himself is the grandson of a former Prime Minister of the Shah, Ali Amini. Actually this is mentioned in Persian by the Shah's former ambassador to Washington, Ardeshir Zahedi, where he points out the responsibility for the Shah's failures should rest on his officials too, "like your grandfather, the former Prime Minister" Zahedi tells the documentary's director, however this part is conveniently not translated in the subtitles.

Prime Minister Ali Amini, the grand father of the documentary's director, was another one of Qajar dynasty descendants who prospered under the Pahlavi rule. The Turkic Qajar dynasty who ruled Iran for 140 years, were the most incompetent and the most decadent dynasty throughout Iran's 2500 year history. One incompetent Qajar King after another, led the demise of the Persian empire and reduced it to a poor backward country, a vassal of British and Tsarist Russian empires. Throughout Iran's history every time a new dynasty took over, the members of the previous dynasty were mercilessly massacred by the new kings on the block. The Pahlavis, the first Persian dynasty to rule Iran since the Arab invasion 1400 years earlier, with the exception of a few scattered local dynasties, were the only dynasty in the Iranian history who were magnanimous towards the previous ancien régime clan members. Most of the Qajar offsprings and princes, and there were many for they had huge hareems, prospered under the Pahlavi rule and they became important officials in the new era of modernisation, like the documentary director's grandfather, Prime Minister Amini. Yet the treachery of the Qajar offsprings to Iran has never ceased. It seems they carry a gene of betrayal in their DNA.

The viewer is also not told the entire truth about who the dissidents featured in the documentary are. For example Abdolkarim Lahiji is the man who wrote the first draft of the Islamic Republic's constitution that has put Iran under the total dictatorship of the Supreme Leader. At one point the subtitle under Lahiji reads "You are leading us to hell!" Of course Lahiji was referring to the Shah holding the celebrations ceremony but I leave it to the reader to decide what  "led us to hell"? the 2500 year celebrations of Iranian history or the constitution of the Islamic Republic?

Even the true identities of the "experts" used in the documentary are kept from the viewers. One of the so-called 'experts' used, Arshin Adib-Moghadam, is the son of the former head of the Islamic Republic mosque in Hamburg. Again I leave it to the readers to decide where Arshin Adib-Moghadam's loyalties lie or if he is a non-partisan academic?  See:
"Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, an Unlikely Non-partisan Analyst"

Khomeini's opposition to the abolition of the feudal system, a major cause of poverty in Iran, and the women's rights to vote, the rights of the religious minorities and other progressive reforms of the Shah are not fully and properly explained to the viewers either. The idea after all is that the Shah was a tyrant and Khomeini was the liberator of the Iranian people or so the BBC would have the viewers believe.

To confuse the viewers further, the wrong footage is often used for the subject matter, for example the footage of the mobs in 1953 who overthrew Mossadeq and the riots in that era is shown as the people's opposition to the Shah's reforms, known as the "white revolution" in 1963:

The list of half truths and not telling the whole truths continue in this BBC disinformation-mentary and it can be a good text book example of non-objective media reporting.

At the end, all I can say to the BBC is, we were proud of the 2500 year celebrations ceremony of our history and we were more than happy to flaunt it, so get over it BBC and worry about keeping your office in Tehran!

Press TV or PressForSex TV?

Press TV, as most people by now know, is the English speaking arm of the Islamic Republic's state TV broadcasting. On the surface therefore, it has to display all the pious religious credentials the Iranian state claims to safeguard. Male presenters don't wear Western ties that "resemble a Christian cross" and female presenters of course have to adhere to the strict Islamic dress code.

Press TV, as with the rest of the Islamic Republic media and institutions, is also fiercely obsessed with accusing all others of loose morals and having rampant sexual orgies behind the scenes. Such is the obsession by the Islamic Republic's media that they have even stooped as low as creating fake web sites to implicate presenters of other TV presenters and journalists of raping children, and even making blatant lies that a female exiled journalist was raped in front of her child in the streets of London!

The sudden resignation by a Press TV female news anchor, Sheena Shirani, before the weekend and her revelations of how she was under constant harassment by her news director and other male bosses in Press TV, is a manifestation of the old proverb, "The pot calling the kettle black" or to be more PC, "the skunk calling the rose stinky".

Former Press TV news anchor, Sheena Shirani's revelations prove that the underlying reason for the Iranian state media's obsession with accusing all others of having illicit sexual relations behind the scenes, is in fact a deep rooted frustration within the sexually repressed mentality of the Islamic Republic media's own senior male managers.

Sheena Shirani's revelations about the widespread sexual harassment in Press TV, started with her bombshell Facebook status when she announced she had left Press TV:

Soon after the above Facebook status, she posted a 10 minute recorded telephone conversation with her news director, Hamid Reza Emadi, when he demanded from her to ejaculate him in return for all the 'favours' he had done for her in the past.

In the recoded conversation, Emadi tells his news anchor that her breasts drive him crazy. Then he begs her to do him a favour several times. The favour he was asking for turns out to be that she should make him feel better by helping him ejaculate. Emadi then carries on saying his balls have been aching for her since the previous night and despite Sheena's objections that she doesn't want to know about such things, Emadi, the Press TV news director, persists that she is indebted to him and so she should help him ejaculate. Despite Sheena's objections that she can not do such things, Emadi presses on saying "You can do a lot more for me, you can have sex with me... " Sheena tells Emadi he should ask his wife to do these things for him, but Emadi replies "If my wife could please me, why would I come after you?".

The conversation then briefly turns into English. Emadi asks her in English "Why do you hate me so much?" and Sheena answers back in English saying "Why do I hate you so much? You make me hate you! What you are doing is hurting me". Then they revert to talking in Persian again and Sheena says "He is sexually harassing her", Emadi however has a different interpretation of sexual harassment and says "I don't harass you, its just that sometimes I feel frustrated and I call you because you are my friend".

Sheena sounding totally stressed replies "Just because I am polite to you it doesn't mean you should expect such things from me. I don't want to have a relationship with you other than a working relationship".
Emadi again ignores her and insists how much he has stuck up for her in the past and its now her turn to help him. Sheena's answer once again is "It doesn't mean I should sexually please you, I can not do it".
Emadi then refers to another colleague at Press TV, "You know how much I stood up for you against that beastly man, Afshar" Sheena snaps back "Afshar is another lech like you. You know all about him. I really don't want to talk anymore".

Emadi again ignores Sheena and seems to have the delusion that he can turn her on by saying "I am lying completely naked in bed now, you have a very sexy body, you don't realise it yourself. That husband of yours who left you must have been a complete idiot. You are super sexy. I am not the only one saying this. You are just unaware of the treasure you possess. Even despite those awful clothes they make you wear, even when you are wearing those clothes, you drive me crazy. Your body drives me crazy. I do my best to stop myself from the way I feel about you, everyone else feels the same about you. Even when you walk its as if you are offering sex, you don't realise yourself, you are super hot! Will you help me ejaculate?"
Sheena again protests and Emadi clutching at the last straws makes the 'shocking' admission that he is sexually hyperactive and needs help!
Sheena asks him "Is that my fault?" and Emadi quickly replies "Yes it is your fault, because you have such beautiful tits and such sexy lips. You have destroyed me with your breasts. Just give me 2 minutes of your time and make me ejaculate!"
Sheena's last words are "I can't. Bye" before she puts the phone down.

Sheena has also posted the unwanted flirtatious text messages her news director used to send her:

There is also a 30 minute video of Sheena speaking on camera, which reveals the extent of sexual harassment faced by female employees working at Press TV.

Interestingly also, Hamid Reza Emadi, is none other than the man who directed the forced confessions of the former jailed Newsweek correspondent in Iran, Maziar Bahari , which Press TV then aired as if it was a normal interview made without duress and Ofcom repeatedly tried to ignore as a gross violation of its rules, so as not to upset the ruling regime in Iran.

So there you have it, despite all the veneers of piety and reverence for Islamic morals, and all the false accusations against others, once again it seems as the famous Iranian poet, Hafiz, so pertinently put it seven centuries ago:

On the pulpit, preachers, pour out their pious display
Yet in private, they behave in a different way
I have a question to ask of the learned in our midst
Why Confession-Priests, make their own repentance delay.

You Are Giving Islam a Bad Name!

Have you ever wondered what Islamists think when a non-Muslim, who has never read the Koran or the Sira [biography] of the prophet, tells them what they are doing is not Islamic?!

Well below is one example. The video below shows Ayatollah Khomeini amongst some of his disciples, reacting to the former US president, Jimmy Carter, who had claimed what Khomeini was doing, was not Islamic!

Translation:

Khomeini: "Becoming an Islamic expert seems to be on the rise, Saddam thinks he is an Islam expert, Sadat seems to be amongst these Islam experts too who think they can tell what is Islamic and what is not and recently Mr. Carter has joined the ranks of these Islam experts too [Laughter] during a meeting on one of his trips, [Carter] has claimed 'these things that are happening in Iran have nothing to do with Islam' [Laughter]

So it looks like Islamic experts are on the increase, may be [Menachim] Begin will also soon claim to be an Islamic expert [Laughter] These people keep going on about what Islam is or isn't and they don't even know how to spell Islam"

So the short answer to the original question on this post: "They laugh"

"It Could Never Happen Over Here"

There was a time in Iran, when the state didn't tell you what you could wear, what religion you could follow, what music you could listen to, whose hands you could hold, who you could shake hands with or how you should piss, etc. 

During one of those days in Tehran, when Iranians still had their civil liberties, I was walking with my friends, after school had finished, towards the bus terminals in 24 Esfand Square along the wide pavements of the Shahreza Avenue that later become the scene of major protests against the Shah and is now called Revolution Avenue. On that day, our daily fun filled fifteen minutes walk was suddenly interrupted by a loud noise of glass shattering and chants of Allah Akbar. 

I saw some bearded young men hurriedly run into the side streets and some women wearing black chadors hurl some leaflets in the air before they too disappeared into the side streets. The bearded men had smashed the bank's front glass panel by throwing bricks at it, leaving the people inside the bank looking dazed and shocked.

The entire incident took a few seconds, like a temporary visual abberation. Once it was over, I asked my friends "what the hell was all that about?". One of my friends replied "They must have been Khomeini's supporters" and I asked again "who the hell is Khomeini?" 

Until then, I had never heard of Khomeini. When my friend explained Khomeini to be this cleric who had been exiled and wanted to turn Iran into an Islamic Republic forcing women to wear the veil and rule the country according to the Islamic Sharia, I laughed and said "Well that would never happen here!", what a fool I was!

Every time I hear the phrase "it could never happen here", I am reminded of that childhood incidence, but whereas I could be forgiven for being no more than a naive school kid, the politicians, statesmen and those responsible for the security of their citizens should not be forgiven for burying their heads in the sand and neglecting their responsibilities to safeguard their citizens.

Such manifestations of naivety amongst officials who should have known better was best demonstrated during the Carter administration years. 

Andrew Young, Carter's ambassador to UN at the time of Iranian revolution, described Khomeini as a “saint”.
Carter's national security adviser, Brezhinsky, thought “we can get along with Khomeini”.
Carter's ambassador in Iran, William Sullivan, referred to Khomeini as Iran's Mehatma Gandhi.

Those who had actually bothered to read Khomeini's books and had dared to tell the truth, were silenced and accused of being scaremongers. When three American newspapers published extensive accounts of Khomeini's writings, that revealed him to be as anti-Western and extremely reactionary, Henry Precht, the Head of US State Department's Iran Desk, said those newspaper accounts were severely misleading and likened the newspaper articles that revealed the true nature of Khomeini, as “at best a collection of school student notes and at worst a forgery”!

Well, hindsight now tells us who the "school students" were and which was a "forgery". If this bitter experience of Carter administration callowness and gullibility had taught the politicians and their advisors a useful lesson, it wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately history keeps repeating itself and I keep hearing  "it will never happen here"  optimist rebuttals over and over again.

I remember in year 2000, I was describing a scene to a colleague that I had witnessed in the Speakers Corner, London, involving the Islamists there and expressing my concern over the rise of Islamic fanatics in the UK. My colleague's response was to shrug his shoulders and to reassure himself by saying the famous words "It will never happen over here"! 

It is probably unnecessary for me to list all the things that have happened here in UK since that casual conversation 15 years ago, perhaps its best to talk about why they happened here and why they will continue to happen and the only way that it can be stopped.

Extremism is not hard to define. Extremism is when a group of people become totally absorbed by an ideology to the extent that everything becomes justifiable for them to serve their ideology. They perceive their ideology as so great, so superior and so impeccable that any crime in the service of the ideology becomes justifiable for them. They will kill innocent civilians, they will kill women and children, because human life compared to their perceived sanctity and superiority of their ideology becomes totally insignificant, no matter how innocent. 

Extremism requires foot soldiers however. Extremists are not after winning the hearts and minds of the mainstream public, they are after brainwashing and recruiting foot soldiers as canon fodder. They are after brainwashing receptive minds of disgruntled individuals and recruiting  them to deliver violence, by turning ordinary individuals into zealot thugs, who misguidedly think their violence is for a good cause, they have an impact far greater than their numbers. Extremists want to seize power by whatever means available to them and not necessarily by a majority vote.

To do the above they need institutions, infrastructure and umbrella organisations and this is where the Western politicians have failed their citizens. In order to reach the highest common denominator for votes and attract as many votes from any quarter, they have preferred to ignore or simply not recognise how these building blocks function for breeding extremism.

For example it may surprise most readers that the Supreme Leader of Iran, who encourages his followers to chant death to England and burn the British flag, has a representative office here in London. Even when the Iranian embassy was closed in the aftermath of the attack on the British embassy in Tehran, the Supreme Leader's office in Maida Vale continued to thrive and carry on with its activities which include a Muslim school network that teaches its pupils loyalty to the Supreme Leader of Iran. The British Council in Iran however still remains closed. 

It may also surprise the readers, that a reactionary Ayatollah in Iran, Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, a holocaust denier and someone who has issued a death fatwa against an Iranian rap singer in Germany has a registered charity in UK and also has a representative office in Harrow Road. Whats more, he has received financial aid and grant from Brent Council for "promoting religious freedom and tolerance"! The mind boggles at such stupidity and ignorance.

Throughout Western democracies and by using the loopholes in democracies, Mosques, Madressehs, book shops, charities, TV stations etc. are being set up by extremists as the breeding grounds they require to thrive. The existing laws often suffice in closing them down, but what is lacking however is the courage to apply the existing laws.

Extremism doesn't grow overnight, it needs to spread its seeds and then nurture them over the years through institutions and build an infrastructure that can thrive and spread. Until our politically correct politicians are reluctant to pluck the courage and dismantle these institutions and our voters don't push them into doing so, arresting and killing the perpetrators of terror acts, only creates martyrs who can easily be replaced by new more experienced and more hardened terrorists, as we have witnessed since the last decade.

An Ardent Follower of Imam "Romeyni" in Iran

This is a scene from Wednesday's annual organised nationwide rallies across Iran that marks the 36th anniversary of the takeover of the US embassy. They have found some disgruntled black man and shipped him to Iran to speak to the crowds outside the former US embassy in Tehran - ["The den of spies"].

As you can see from the video, he tells the crowds that if they remain united; then they will be able to "destroy America".  

The black man claims he is a follower of Imam "Romeyni" and that this mysterious Imam "Romeyni" was "one of the greatest leaders of the last time"!

Please note when he asks to "Destroy America" and chants "God Damn America", he probably means the 'policies of the US government' and it should not tarnish the Islamic Republic's sincerity in implementing the JCPOA.

Western Media Coverage of Gen. Hamedani, Copy/Paste of Official Iranian News

My main reason for starting this blog,  ten years ago, was my frustration at the way Iran related news was reported in the Western mass media. I felt the Tehran based correspondents  gave an unrealistic rosy picture of Iran so as not to upset the Iranian authorities and risk getting deported and I felt someone needed to tell the other side of the story.

Ten years on, with the advent of citizen journalism, social media and more news websites in English by other Iranians fluent in both English and Persian, we do not have to only rely on reading the news from media correspondents,  nevertheless it is still the mass media that has the largest readership and reading the mass media coverage of Iran news is still very frustrating at times.

One such recent sloppy news coverage was that of Brigadier General Hossein Hamedani, killed in Syria earlier this month.
Here is this ridiculous tweet by the Guardian's "Iran expert" who is responsible for making up and disseminating many current media myths and falsehoods about what is going on in Iran:

It is clearly obvious from the above, Saeed Kamali Dehghan had no idea who Brig. General Hamedani was and had never heard of him before!

The most important information that was not reported in the mass media's coverage of Brig. General Hamedani was that he was a commander of the Qods Force, the elite IRGC unit for overseas operations led by General Qassem Soleimani. In fact at times it seems the mass media in the West thinks the Qods Force is just made up of one person, Qassem Soleimani.

Also missing from the mass media coverage was Hamedani's prolific role in the crackdown on Iranian protesters in 2009, particularly on the Ashura uprising as the head of Tehran's 'Mohamad Rasool Allah Corps.'.
In his last media interview, Hamedani described how he had re-trained thugs and hoodlum who had been imprisoned before, for non-political offences, and had let them loose on the protesters. A crackdown method that has always proved very effective with the Islamic Republic ever since its inception.

Hamedani despised the leaders of the Green Movement. After Moussavi, Rahnavard and Karroubi, the leaders of the Green Movement, were imprisoned, Hamedani claimed "Even if they repent, they will not be forgiven".

In Syria he set up the National Defence Force, modelled on the Iranian ‘Basij’ militia". The NDF soon became another Islamic Republic engineered disaster in Syria. The indiscipline and lawlessness of the NDF not only led to much resentment by the regular Syrian military officers and the population but on 30th April this year, fighting broke out between the Syrian government security forces and the NDF outside Homs, resulting in several deaths.

Hamedani was blamed for much of Iran's failure  to bring the situation under control in Syria. He was recalled to Iran and demoted to be in charge of 'integrating the logistic equipments for Syria'.

News of his death was first announced by pro-regime journalists and websites, who said Hamedani was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Syria and died in the ambulance on his way to hospital:

The IRGC official statement that came out hours later said Brig. Gen. Hamedani was martyred while fighting IS forces. Of course to be killed by the 'Takfiri' infidels in battle is a whole lot more appealing than being killed in a road accident, but again the mass media bought the official Iranian line.

What we got in the Western mass media regarding Gen. Hamedani's death, was a more or less copy/paste of the official Iranian news, an Iranian IRGC "advisor" was killed by ISIS in Syria!

David Shariatmadari’s links with Iranian regime and the Guardian’s credibility gap

David Shariatmadari, the Guardian editor who recently authored a much-derided hatchet-job on the leading British Muslim liberal Maajid Nawaz, has long been something of an enigma. Homosexual and a self-described “sort of pan-theist”, he has nonetheless regularly painted a rosy picture of Iran’s theocratic government and has also, according to a variety of Muslim liberals, blocked reformist voices and those who are critical of the Islamic Republic of Iran from writing for Guardian's "Comment Is Free". 

Born in London to an English mother and an Iranian Muslim father, educated at the exclusive Christ’s Hospital School in Lincoln, Shariatmadari attained a degree in Arabic, Persian and Linguistics at Kings College, Cambridge, and subsequently a Linguistics MA at SOAS in London. On the way, he flirted with the right, including penning a sub-Rod Liddle diatribe against ‘diversity’ and civil service waste for the Spectator (“You can hardly move for diversity action plans and diversity monitoring grids”) and for the corporate world, writing for BP’s in-house magazine Horizon.

So far so typical of the Guardian’s upper-middle class commentariat. However, Shariatmadari also seems to harbour a dark family secret that he has never revealed publicly. His father’s brother, who he has described fondly in the Guardian itself, is directly implicated in some of the 20th century’s worst human rights abuses in the name of Islam, a fact never unacknowledged publicly by Shariatmadari. In one 2009 reminiscence for the Guardian on the 1979 Iranian revolution, Shariatmadari wrote lightheartedly of his childhood encounters with his unnamed Iranian uncle:
"My uncle, who sent us boxes of 'gaz' - a Persian delicacy from Isfahan - and pistachios every so often and had been put in prison by the Shah (three months solitary confinement for attending a protest against French actions in Algeria), started working for the new government. He came to see us when I was about three, with "protection" in tow. This man appears sheepishly in some of our photo albums. He was a student and assistant really, but in family myth he became a bodyguard with a gun"

In another article, he again casually references meeting this, still unnamed, uncle on a visit to Iran, writing of his “a simple trip to see my uncle and aunts, the town my dad grew up in, my grandfather's grave”.

Who was this mysterious, un-named but clearly powerful uncle, who arrived escorted by a bodyguard, who David so coyly describes as “working for the new government” of post-revolutionary Iran?

It can now be said with a high probability of certainty that Dr Ali Shariatmadari, one of Ayatollah Khomeini’s closest political lieutenants and the man entrusted with purging the country’s universities of suspected secular and ‘un-Islamic’ intellectuals, and particularly Leftists, is his mysterious uncle.

A former school teacher, university lecturer and a committed Khomeini zealot, who was indeed jailed briefly under the Shah, Ali Shariatmadari was initially appointed as Minister of Science in Iran’s relatively moderate and inclusive post-revolutiona interim government in 1979. 

However, once Khomeini’s Islamists took full control of the government later in 1980 and launched their assault on their erstwhile Left-wing allies, Shariatmadari was appointed Minister for Higher Education. Soon afterwards, in June 1980, Khomeini personally appointed him to co-establish the country’s Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, the unelected body which to the present day imposes draconian restrictions on Iran’s cultural, educational and intellectual life in the name of revolution and Islam. 

Khomeini’s statement announcing this on 12 June, reads in part:
"Hence, their Excellency Mr. Mohammad Javad Bahonar, Mr. Mehdi Rabbani Amleshi, Mr. Hassan Habibi, Mr. Abdulkarim Soroush, Mr. Shams Al-e Ahmad, Mr. Jalaleddin Farsi and Mr. Ali Shariatmadari are made responsible to establish a headquarter and invite committed experts among Muslim professors, committed employees and other educated, committed and faithful layers of the society to form a council being charged to take measures in planning for various courses and for the cultural policy of the universities in future on the basis of Islamic culture and through selection of efficient, committed and vigilant professors and for other issues relevant to the Islamic academic revolution.”

In this dual role on the Supreme Council and as Minister for Higher Education, acting under Khomeini’s personal orders, Ali Shariatmadari led the Islamist regime’s purge of Iran’s intellectuals; universities were closed in 1980 for two years to facilitate the purges, over 800 lecturers and academics were dismissed, many into lives of poverty or exile, and others – including intellectuals, academics and poets – were jailed or executed after often cursory show-trials. An estimated 8,000 people, men, women, old and even teenagers were executed by the regime during the eighties.

While others on the Council grew uneasy and resigned, some such as Abdol Karim Soroush even later becoming opposition, David Shariatmadari’s gift-bearing “Uncle Ali” remained steadfastly loyal to the most conservative elements of the regime, being reappointed to the Supreme Council by Ayatollah Ali Khameini in 2007. Indeed, he 
continues to sit on the council today, a fact which David Shariatmadari has strangely never acknowledged in his numerous articles for the Guardian on Iran – even ones that directly reference his uncle!

No-one should be held guilty of the crimes of others. However, it is legitimate to ask to what extent David Shariatmadari’s family ties to the senior Iranian government officials impact his reporting on Iran in the Guardian? In one of his articles on the subject of Iran’s government, David Shariatmadari has made some lukewarm criticisms of the regime, referencing ‘the executions’ in passing, before issuing this spectacular cop-out:

"But who am I to talk with any authority? I experienced the Iranian revolution at one remove and was in no position to make sense of it. Even now it's impossible to give a judgment; there were millions of revolutions, experienced in millions of different ways." !!

Has moral equivocation ever been so immoral? The Iranian ‘Islamic’ revolution, partly thanks to the actions of David’s own ‘Uncle Ali”, has led to judicial stonings, the execution of adulterers, the public hanging from cranes of those guilty of ‘apostacy’, the discriminations against homosexuals, the systematic restriction of women’s rights, the casual routine execution of political prisoners (5,000 in 1988 alone) but who is David Shariatmadari, the nephew of Dr Ali Shariatmadari, to judge? How much do his family ties prevent him from reporting on the true nature of Iran’s government?

In other instances, David Shariatmadari has gone further than sitting on the fence and has actively defended the regime, perhaps out of misplaced familial loyalty. For instance, in one 2009 piece on Iran’s presidential elections, he said had voted for the more moderate candidate, Hossein Mousavi, and then concluded with a woefully inaccurate rose-tinted analysis of the situation in Iran:

"Iranian democracy is far more than the regime-orchestrated sham many westerners assume it must be. It falls short on two crucial measures: all parliamentary and presidential candidates are vetted by the conservative Guardian Council, and the supreme leader of the nation is, of course, unelected. But there is no denying that in 2009 we have had a real contest; the candidates have been exposed to scrutiny, there is significant difference between the policies on offer and the results are, as yet, anyone's guess."

Within days, however, Iran’s conservative faction had effectively rigged and stolen the election, arrested the winning candidates, and then cracked down violently on the resulting protests. As “many Westerners” – and many better informed Iranians – had correctly surmised, “Iranian democracy” was indeed a “regime-orchestrated sham”. Undeterred, rather than apologising for his woeful analysis, he soon after published a lengthy denunciation of Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) the Leftist Islamist opposition/rival group to the mullahs who helped the mullahs come to power in 1979 but then fell out with them when they received no share of the power. 

Now, if David Shariatmadari wishes to defend elements of the Iranian regime and to attack Muslim liberals and to block them from writing for his employers at the Guardian, this is his personal choice. However, it seems only fair for Guardian readers, and would-be liberal Muslim contributors, to know of his links to the regime and of his uncle’s role in the systematic persecution of Iran’s intellectuals. Indeed, given David Shariatmadari’s close family ties to Iran’s brutal theocratic and massively corrupt rulers’, his recent snipes at Maajid Nawaz for his “closeness to the law-making elite” can also now been seen as exposing jaw-dropping level of hypocrisy.

In his recent article on Nawaz, Shariatmadari took aim at what he calls Quilliam’s “credibility gap”. Maybe his next article should ponder his own deliberate silence over his uncle Ali’s role in the bloody persecution and the silencing of Iran’s leftwing and liberal intelligentsia, and then consider why The Guardian, like so much of the British Left, has its own “credibility gap” with Muslim and secular Iranians.

Before writing this post, I emailed, messaged and phoned David Shariatmadari to give him an opportunity to deny Ali Shariatmadari is his uncle, but he refused.

Khomeini's Damnation of Mossadegh

What happens when the management of a company choose bad advisors? Well usually bad advise leads to undesirable consequences and the company suffers, but when the management is the US administration that appoints bad foreign advisors, then the undesirable consequences become global catastrophic calamities!

I am still so infuriated about Obama apologising to the mullahs in Iran for the toppling of Mossadegh in 1953. It shows that none of the things we talked about or wrote about after Madeline Albright made the same mistake,  including articles written by the likes of Ray Takeyh, are reaching the US administration which is more hell bent on listening to advice on Iran from their NIAC advisors, considered by many as a lobby group for the Islamic Republic. 

So it is with little hope that I am writing this post, except that this is not my opinion or that of a learned person's accurate recount of what really happened in 1953. This is Khomeini's damnation of Mossadegh in his own words. Perhaps by watching this, the future US administrations will learn that they need not apologise to the mullahs for the events of 1953 in Iran or consider it a reason to justify the actions by the mullahs today!

Perhaps Ayatollah Khomeini's damnation of Mossadegh will make the US administration realise that they really are listening to very bad advise!

"right from the beginning when Ayatollah Kashani saw that they [Mossadegh supporters] are misbehaving and spoke against them, what they [Mossadegh supporters] did was to put a pair of glasses on a dog and named it Ayatollah [audience cries]..this was at a time when his [Mossadegh] supporters speak so proudly of him, Mossadegh was not a Muslim either. That day I was in the house of one of Tehran's high ranking clerics, when I heard the news that they have put a pair of glasses on a dog and are walking him in the streets calling the dog, Ayatollah. I told that high ranking cleric that I was with at that time, this is now no longer a matter of personal animosity with Mossadegh, he will be slapped for this, and it wasn't long before he was slapped, and had he [Mossadegh]  remained in power, he would have slapped Islam"