The head of Iran's Civilian Aviation Organization, Reza Jahangirian, has recently stated that, "Iranian airlines will be ready to buy 40 passenger planes every year for 10 years if sanctions are lifted." (Reuters, May 1 2014)Jahangirian also said that out of Iran's present fleet of 250 commercial planes about 150 are flying whilst the rest are "not functional" owing to their ages and the ban on the import of spare parts Iran as part of the broader economic sanctions imposed on the country.
He also said that, "We have got very positive signals from Western companies, including Boeing Co. and General Electric Co. (GE) about getting new spare parts for our planes."
Amongst the few restrictions which have been lifted, as part of the temporary interim nuclear deal made last November, are the strict restrictions which prevent Iran from buying spare parts needed to maintain its commercial air fleet.
GE has already gotten approval from the U.S. Treasury to service 18 engines whcih were sold to Iran back in the late 1970's before the revolution.
Jahangirian also said that Iran has undergone "technical" steps in the preparation of the resumption of direct flights from the United States to Iran. (AP, April 30 2014)
30 comments:
If you had a nickle for every lie an iranian told you would be a rich man. It's a dishonesty culture.
Hi Paul,long time no see ! I hope you realize that this regime is full of bullsh*t !
Normality will only come back to Iran after the fall of the fascist Islamic regime.
Next decade? LOL !
Unfortunately, There has never been a "Normal" relationship between Iran and the West since Reza Shah and his son. How can anyone call a relationship "Normal" when the West removes Reza Shah and Jail him abroad until he dies, then interferes heavily and blindly afterwards, sometimes illogically against their own interests, is beyond logic..
You mean Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Please use the proper names without holding any grudges.You forgot to mention the Wests betrayal of Prime minister Bakhtiar by forcing the army to become "neutral".
First of all Iran ain't got the money, secondly the US government ain't interested, thirdly the Iranians have other more pressing issues to address. If the Iranian regime was ever "sincere about obtaining new Commercial Airliners" then why, during all these years, haven't they placed orders for new passenger planes to be built in Russia or China?
Reza Shah's son does not have much respect in Iran's History. A King's son that seats on the throne while his Father withers away in jail at the hands of invaders and occupiers and does nothing to help his Father is not going to be remembered kindly by History.
Anon 2:19 PM
As I said,the grudge you hold against Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is making you ramble on in a illogical manner. Reza Shah agreed to the abdication providing his twenty one year old "son" Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah. You might as well blame any son for the death of their father because of his illness. That's not for you to decide what "respect" Mohammad Reza Pahlavi holds in Iran's history period.
there's plenty of money in Iran. the Ayatollah and the IRGC has it.
Yes you are right. Most countries have a religion. In Iran's case it is the religion that has a country.
Seriously, if you are a Persian King's son, you let your Father be taken away as such, you think Reza Shah really had anything to say about that? He was abducted and was a hostage. Illogical? Since when having courage and standing up to your fathers' abductors is illogical...That is the minimum any Iranian would expect of a King..
Anon 10:53 AM
You've been watching to much IRI TV propaganda episodes of "Pahlavi Cap". Give it a rest for god sake!
Anon 10:53 AM
You've been watching to many episodes of "Pahlavi's Cap". Give it a rest for god sake!
I have no clue what Pahlavi's cap is. I gather my information from historical facts, both inside and outside Iran. There are many reputable historians who have written extensively about Persia/Iran from the Genocide in early 1900's by the British during WWI through WWII and occupation of Neutral Iran. Stating historical facts can only be useful for everyone. Telling truth matters.
Anon 10:44 AM
Well,you haven't been reading the right history books regarding the "historical facts" about the abdication of Reza Shah,have you? Because if you did we wouldn't be discussing the nonsense you claim about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi,would we?
Obviously, your defensive tone shows your lack of knowledge. Facts are a stubborn thing, aren't they? Do you like to refute these historians that Reza Shah was forced to exile, as he was implementing his plans for a Modern, non-sectarian society, and Strong Iran and died while in exile? And the fact his Spineless son did nothing to save him? Here are links to books written by historians whose only aim in life is to document facts and the truth. Your choice, believe fiction or fact.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/listing/2694640733268?r=1&cm_mmc=GooglePLA-_-Book_25To44-_-Q000000633-_-2694640733268
and
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/german-foreign-policy-towards-iran-before-world-war-ii-rashid-khatib-shahidi/1112413602?cm_mmc=googlepla-_-book_45up-_-q000000633-_-9781848853249&ean=9781848853249&isbn=9781848853249&r=1
and
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/listing/2685398250923?r=1&cm_mmc=GooglePLA-_-Book_45Up-_-Q000000633-_-2685398250923
Anon 12:29 PM
There are a lot of books out there that claim a lot of rubbish regarding Iran and its monarchy. But only a gullible would believe some of the fictitious dross written in them by some anti-Iran elements. Good luck in your endeavour to believe in those shills that like to call themselves "historians".
Note: Last year the BBC Persian brought in a so-called Iranian "historian" and claimed that, "Iran was an artificial country created by the Turks". And rightly so Iranians objected against this paid shill. There are many "historians" that claim a lot of misplaced diatribes against Iran zamin and it's monarchy. Obviously,you like to perpetuate their claims.
This is simple if you Answer these questions:
1) Do you refute or accept that Reza Shah was exiled by the Allied during WWII?
2) Do you refute or accept that Reza Shah died while in Exile?
3) Do you refute or accept that Reza Shah's son was in power when his Father, Reza Shah was in Exile and died in Exile?
Once you answer these 3 simple questions then everything becomes much clearer!
My apologies for entering the conversation so late; but your latest comments seemed intriguing. And thanks for the conversation.
But first let me ask a question as newcomer to this conversation: What does Reza Shah’s exile having anything to do with Iran needing to purchase $400 billion of new planes in the next decade (the subject of this post)?
On Reza Shah’s exile, some more fundamental questions before getting to his son: Why did he accept Allies’ order to leave the country and go to exile? I thought he was a strong-willed military man who had repeatedly told the nation that he would sacrifice the last drop of his blood to defend Iran. What happened? Just packed his bags, and the deeds to his “properties” and other valuables, and drove to the Persian Gulf to board a British ship out of the country? Why didn’t he stayed in Iran to lead the army, which he spent so much of his time and people’s treasure to build, in a fight against the occupiers until “the last drop of his blood?”
And the father, the son! First, Mohammad Reza did not want to accept the throne, and I wish he had not, and became king only after types of nationalists like Foroughi, who were worried for the country’s situation, convinced him to accept his “duty.” Then he fled the country whenever he got a chance; most famously during Mossadeq’s era and then under pressure from Khomeini and the Islamic revolution. And like the father, he had also spent so much time and people’s treasure on a modern army in part to maintain the 2,500 years of monarchy he so famously kept celebrating.
On the subject of the post, Iran does need $400 billion in investment in new civilian planes, and hope they would start doing that if and as soon as the sanctions are lifted.
Mr. Uskowi, The $400m Billion purchase of planes obviously has nothing to do with the discussion!, It git side tracked a long time ago as most discussions about politics do. Your assessment and facts about the son are quite correct. I only remind that unlike what you said Reza Shah did not leave quietly, first there are facts that several units and brigades fought valiantly to the last bullet before surrendering, many of his officers and soldiers were kept in jails long time after the war through-out India, and he was forced to leave at gun point. His past record as an officer in one of the most decorated units in Persia's army clearly shows he was not a coward, unlike his son.
And on the subject, I agree that any investment in AIr and transportation infrastructure shows clear advantage and benefits.
If I am not mistaken, you are referring to an incident that the guards briefly fought approaching Allied forces after Reza Shah had already left Tehran. There are no reports or evidence that Reza Shah disobeyed the British or organized any form of armed resistance to keep his throne. In fact he left very quietly,at the middle of the night to Isfahan in a convoy of two cars, and after spending the night at Kazerouni's left on the same car to the Persian Gulf. This is not the image he had so carefully painted for himself as a strongman that would not take order from even the God, let alone the British!
His army didn't fight the advancing Allied armies either. There are so many reports of officers deserting their posts, taking out their uniform and flee with underwear before the Soviet troops even reached their posts. All the myth about the new army under Reza evaporated in matters of hours. There were of course few instances of bravery by some units, but very few with no consequence. The army as an organization collapsed just after the reports that the Red Army was advancing toward Tehran.
On The contrary sir, more than several units fought bravely although some of the officers abandoned their soldiers. One common mistake is most think Allied invaded Iran with small armies and no real fire fights occurred, as a matter of fact it is documented that Soviets alone had more than 1,000 tanks when invading Iran. Wiki has some of those events documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
but one of the better books will be Iran at War 1500-1988 ; http://www.amazon.com/Iran-War-1500-1988-General-Military/dp/B006QS2P4O
Thanks so much for the info. Will read the documents.
But the heart of our conversation was Reza Shah's behavior in accepting foreign powers' order to leave the country at a most critical time for the nation. That must be one of the saddest moments in the country's modern history.
@Nader Uskowi
Some of the Iranian generals in charge ordered the soldiers and officers to stay at home. My grandfather was arrested by the "allies" and kept for three years because they claimed he was "a trouble maker". To be fair Reza Shah's army was just being developed as a modernizing force to protect the internal security and allow the building of the new infrastruture of Iran.How does one expect a third world country that just emerged from the dark pits of the Qajar era to single handedly fight two super powers like Stalin's Russia and Churchill's Britain hell bent on the destruction of their sworn enemy NAZI Germany ? Please note that Reza Shah made a number of enemies among the clergy and as you know the clergy were asked by the British to keep the population calm during and after the invasion. After the invasion a number of clergy and their families returned from British controlled Iraq . As regards the Shah during the "revolution",one expected the Shah to do a Assad on Iran? That's the funny thing about the detractors of the Shah,they were screaming for Khomeini's return and when the Shah rightly decided that he won't stand in their way they accuse him of not standing his ground. Damned if he does and Damned if he doesn't ! Please note that the traitor Gharibaghi betrayed the Iranian armed forces,betrayed Prime minister Bakhtiar and most importantly betrayed Iran to the Omati brigades. All I can say after 35 years of "Sheikh Omati" rule we see their handy work. With best regards this post is in your hands.
@Uskowi,regarding the 400 airpliners.Lets not kid ourselves,there will no normalcy in Iran or the region while this present regime is in place.
Anon 7:15 PM
Firstly you are neither judge nor jury here. Secondly the argument was about your claim that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi should have done something about Reza Shah for him to return from exile to Iran. If as you claim you know so much about the modern history of Iran regarding the Pahlavi's during occupation of Iran by allies you wouldn't have claimed such a diatribe in the first place. Good luck.
Pahlavis faced three major national crisis, and in all three instances they decided to leave the country! Reza Shah before any Allied forces entered Tehran. Mohammad Reza Shah fled Iran when pro-Mossadeq demonstrators came on the streets of Tehran, and stayed in Europe until after a British-U.S.-led coup against Mossadeq. And last instance was his leaving the country even before Khomeini entered Tehran. Can you see a pattern here? Both these men tried so hard to paint an image of a strongman not to be pushed around by anyone. But when faced with danger, they took the easy way out. Nothing to be proud of, is it?
Never claimed to be judge or Jury, and you never answered any of those three simple questions! I still deduce from historical facts that Reza Shah's son was a spineless individual that would never stand to Tyranny and never was ready to risk his own to save even his father let alone a nation.
Mr. Uskowi: British requirements after Iran's Army defeat changed by the day. Reza Shah first left Tehran to Isfahan and after some time eventually left to India via Bandar Abbas, while under control of British Army. He was not let to stat and ended in S. Africa where he died under house arrest. Reza Shah might not have committed suicide when the Allied invaded and defeated his Army but he did not got on a first ferry/plane out of the country when the first foreign soldiers set foot in Iran either, and on the contrary did what he could with what he had within a reason.
I am sorry, but I don't buy that argument. He would have taken the first flight out if that was possible then; and first ferry out if Tehran was a port. Why do we have to put a good spin on the story after more than 80 years? Reza Shah achieved a lot for Iran, in developing the country, taking it out of tribalism, and reducing the clerical influence. He did bad things for the country, taking away all democratic achievements of the Constitutional Revolution, killing or imprisoning whoever opposed him, including his own ministers, and confiscating people's properties, especially in Mazandaran. You might argue he was not a bad king for his time, and served the cause of Iranian development better than any of his predecessors, but please don't tell us he was a courageous soul. That he was not. He should have stayed in Tehran and refused to abdicate. What was he afraid of, of dying for Iran and its monarchy?
Agreed with democratic reversals, but He was a Dictator and an Officer, and after all we are talking about 1920's and 30's when the world was diving into a world war. A dictatorship, unfortunately, can achieve goals faster, but itself is not sustainable system economically and socially. Also, any Officer that put himself in risk to make a coup CANNOT be a coward by definition. It would have been heck of a lot easier to remain on the sidelines, make money, get old and play with grandkids, right? He could have agreed with British terms and stayed in power but he did not, he worked hard to get to top, he stood for what he thought was right for the nation and at the end he payed with his life; AND Unlike his son he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth...Maybe that is why a Monarchy is such a crapshoot and not an ideal...Thanks, I enjoy civil discussions when it remains on subject without personal attacks!
@Uskowi,how do you expect Iran to be a democracy in 1925 when Qajar dynasty left a country of 99.999 percent illiterates for Reza Shah? How do expect Iran to be a democracy when countries in europe weren't even democracies? The problem with Iranians during the Shah's time was to moan and compare Iran to democratic countries like Holland or France. But today very hilariously some Iranians are rather happy to compare Iran to countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan and claim it's slightly better. Seems like the Omati regime has trained the Iranian people very well. Have you heard the old story about the Kurd that went to Khuzestan for work? He found a job as a road builder when he discovered it was unbearble to work due to the heat. The next day he went shopping for a woolen coat. The following hour he started work in the baking hot sun by wearing this coat over his head. As the hour went by he took the coat off his head and suddenly felt very cool and pleasant. That's called conditioning. And that is what the Omati regime has done to Iranian people by using the woolen coat and conditioning them by opening and closing their expectations. All the best !
Anon 5:01 PM
The main argument was about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi not helping Reza Shah return from exile by calling him "spineless". I didn't "refute" that Reza Shah was not exiled or died in exile. You brought the subject up by asking,while king why didn't Mohammad Reza Pahlavi help Reza Shah return to Iran. And as I repeatedly have mentioned to you,if you knew the situation of the country at that time you wouldn't claim such a diatribe. Because even if he tried the allies never would have allowed for Reza Shah's return,because the British considered him an enemy. And this is where I will end the conversation regarding this issue.
I am sorry to say this, but you don't know the history of Iran well. Before Reza Khan's ascendence to power, Iranians had their own Constitutional Revolution, ending centuries of Qajar despotism and bringing in a period of constitutional monarchy, the first of its kind in the whole Middle East. Reza Khan, who by the way was as illiterate as in your description of the 99.999 percent above, destroyed the democratic achievements of the Constitutional Revolution, bringing back despotism and reactionary rule by a "strongman." And the irony being that he was not as strong as he claimed to be, abandoning the Peacock Throne on order from the British and leaving the country during its most critical hours.
By the way, I was not talking about democracies in Western Europe. I was discussing Iranian people's own Constitutional Revolution of 1905, for which all Iranian citizens should be proud of. Reza Khan destroyed the achievements of that very progressive and indigenous movement.
I have said this before, we don't have to justify everything Reza Shah did in order to defend his achievements. He indeed did a lot for the country. He single handedly ended tribal rule in many parts of the country; he developed the country, building roads and railway and factories in an attempt to bring Iran to the 20th century; he raised the living standards of the people of Iran. These are the achievements that Iranians should be always proud of.
At the same time, he single handedly destroyed all democratic achievements of Iran's own Constitutional Revolution and brought back despotism and one-man-rule. He confiscated people's properties for his personal gains. And at the end he did not have the guts to tell the British that he would not abdicate the throne and would stand to defend the Peacock Throne to the end.
Reza Shah was a complex person, and we should recognize his service to the country's economic development as well as his disservice to country's political development.
Post a Comment