Did the British bring the Mullahs to Power in Iran?

-Most Iranians think so.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1720810,00.html

Blaming the British

From cabbies to shahs, most Iranians believe political events can be traced back to English interference, writes Robert Tait

Wednesday March 1, 2006

Watching his fellow countrymen observe the annual Shia Islamic mourning ceremony of Ashura, the disaffected Tehran taxi driver voiced a wish to convert to Christianity that may not have been as sincere as it was incongruous. But whatever his true ecclesiastical leanings, his beliefs about the source of the religious tyranny that so irked him about Iran were real.

"It is England that has imposed these mullahs on us," the cabbie mused, resisting all protestations at the notion's absurdity.

"It is England that has imposed these mullahs on us," the cabbie mused, resisting all protestations at the notion's absurdity. The idea that the Islamic revolution was a plot hatched in Whitehall, and that its spiritual leader, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was some sort of heavily disguised 007 in the secret service of Her Majesty's government does indeed seem weird. But not to many Iranians.

Suggestions that the convulsive events of 1979, which ushered in the Islamic republic, were manipulated and orchestrated by the British are widely accepted here as a given. It is a belief held, even before his reign was swept to oblivion in a revolutionary tidal wave, by the last shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

don't necessarily make it so. I mean, look at all the f**ks that think bush** is really the pResident.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4540.htm

....

In 1951 Prime Minister Mossadegh roused Britain's ire when he nationalized the oil industry. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves which had been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company later became known as British Petroleum (BP).

After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d'état. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government.

The coup was led by an agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. The CIA leaned on a young, insecure Shah to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh as prime minister. Kermit Roosevelt had help from Norman Schwarzkopf’s father: Norman Schwarzkopf.

The CIA and the British helped to undermine Mossadegh's government through bribery, libel, and orchestrated riots. Agents posing as communists threatened religious leaders, while the US ambassador lied to the prime minister about alleged attacks on American nationals.

Some 300 people died in firefights in the streets of Tehran.

Mossadegh was overthrown, sentenced to three years in prison followed by house arrest for life.

The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy.

more....

It would've looked hypocritical if Attlee had done it, seeing as how he nationalised anything that moved, and most of the stuff that didn't.

SAS troops caught in disguise in Iraq near the Iranian border, or the British troops caught by the Iranians on the wrong side of the Shatt al-Arab. Although these do not prove British involvement in Iranian bombings, it is easy to understand how they would look to Iran, when at the same time Britain is involved in an illegakl occupation of Iraq AND seemingly threatening the same in Iran.

The Iranians (and all people who pay attention) know that long before the actual invasion of Iraq, British and American special forces were on the ground "preparing the way". Why SHOULDN'T the Iranians suspect British involvement?