From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: A humble response to Mojahedins
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:09:59 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <1992Dec17.174403.3006@rd.hydro.on.ca> nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca (Navid Badie) writes:
>bxm50@pars.amdahl.com (Ben Mahjoor) writes:
>: 
>: And assuming that you are correct, please explain to us ignorant students
>: of history, the "thing" that Iran's army was created to protect ?
>
>Well, I do not pretend to be trying to explain anything to anyone,
>or to know who is ignorant and who is knowledgeable. However, if you allow
>me to butt in to your dialogue, I will offer an opinion.
>
>Here is the opinion (from here to the end of the article):
>
>The army of the Shah was created, maintained and continually expanded
>to protect the Monarchy in Iran, specifically the rule of the
>Pahlavi dynasty. It is, of course, a side effect of this intention
>that there must be an "Iran" in order for there to be an "Iranian
>Monarchy". But, again in my opinion, it was just a side effect, not
>*the* purpose of the Shah's army. That is why I feel I am justified
>in calling it the Shah's army and not the Iranian army. Further, the
>army had another role, namely the infamous role of "gendarme of the region",
>i.e. to defend the interests of the U.S. in the region, not necessarily
>those of Iran.  That is why the army was by far the largest and best 
>equipped in the region, and why it was over equipped compared to the 
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>defensive needs of Iran.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Iran had three external threats:  Soviet Union, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf.
If you consider the formidable challenges facing our military in just
each of these arenas, especially the first two, you will conclude that
we were not "over equipped compared to the defensive needs of Iran"

Iran had roughly 450 combat aircraft, 300,000 strong army, and a navy with
3 destroyers and some other surface ships (frigates, etc.).  Iraq had
roughly 369 combat aircraft (including long range bombers such as Tu-16
and Tu-22, whereas Iran didn't have any long range bombers), an army of
roughly the same size, with more and better tanks than Iran had.  We had
roughly 750 Chieftains, and a few hundred Scorpion and M48 light tanks,
very few of which helped in the subsequent war with Iraq.  They had
more tanks, among which were the T-62 and T-72 tanks, which were considered
some of the world's best tanks at the time.  Also, they had a formidable
surface to surface missile force, including Frog-7's and Scuds, which was
much more capable than our SSM force.  Their military had a clearly 
offensive posture, not to mention Most of Iran's wealth and lifleine
was right on the border with them.  Iran's military was much more defensive,
focussing on air superiority and antitank helicopters, and was an excellent
deterrent to any Iraqi/Arab aggression, and it WORKED, which is more than I can
say for the IRI's strategy.

As far as being gendarme of the region, I don't see what is wrong with defending
your country's interests in your own backyard.  It's certainly better than 
letting foreigners do it for you.  Iran was patrolling the Persian Gulf,
which was a key waterway and its economic lifeline.  It did a great job
of holding the Iraqis back, and provided at least a first line of defense
against any possible Soviet invasion (Believe me, they would have done it if
they had the chance, like they did in Afghanistan).  Except that the Shah's
gov't was friends with the US, so this was an easy label to put on him.
It just turns out that the US and Iran had many common interests at the time-
to contain Iraq, to keep the Soviets where they were, and to keep the Persain
Gulf open to traffic and commerce.  Which one of these was not in the interest
of Iran?

>
>Please note that I am in no way trying to justify the summary trials
>and executions of army officers. I believe, as you do, in due process,
>in the right of the defendents to have lawyers, open and fair trials, 
>access to the necessary documents for their defence, access to an appeals 
>process, and in short, access to justice. 
>

This IMHO would have been the proper course to take.  Look at all the crimes
the former East German gov't committed against the German people.  But the new
German gov't in the interests of justice and an easier transition to normal
life is trying to deal with former communists in a lawful and peaceful manner,
rather than with a butcher's knife.  The more violent and bloody a transition
is, the longer we have to pay for it.

>: 
>: 				- Behnam
>: 
>
>
>Cheers,
>--Navid
>nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca
>

moaffagh bashee,

Agha Javad


Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian