Mubarak and the shah of Iran, two clone dictators

February 16, 2011

The fall of Hosni Mubarak on the anniversary of the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution reminded people of the similarities between the former Egyptian president and the deposed shah of Iran.

The two dictators had the following nine points in common:
Complete obedience to the U.S. and the Zionists
A glance at the events of the past few decades shows that Mubarak, like the shah of Iran, was always concerned about the interests of the United States.
On the border of the Gaza Strip, where the Hamas resistance movement is strong, Mubarak always collaborated with Israel to serve the illegitimate interests of the Zionist regime and the United States.
The shah of Iran was also a servant of the United States during his day. Iran, a major oil exporting country with the longest coastline in the region, played the role of a regional gendarme for the U.S. and tried to serve the interests of Israel during the last decades of the monarchy.
Swindled money in Western banks
Another similarity is that both dictators had large amounts of cash in numerous bank accounts in European and U.S. banks. Funds swindled from the national wealth fed these accounts and this pilfering was the main cause of poverty in both Egypt and Iran.
Crackdowns on Islamic groups
The Muslim Brotherhood, the most active Islamic group in Egypt, was harshly repressed by Mubarak’s dictatorial regime.
Perhaps the Egyptian dictator forgot that Iran cracked down on Islamic groups in a similar fashion in the 1970s. But the shah of Iran was unable to quell their resistance, which finally resulted in the collapse of the dictatorship.
Response to the people comes too late
The shah’s famous statement in his last televised speech addressing Iranians was: “I heard the sound of your revolution.” But this historic sentence was expressed very late and the revolutionaries could no longer tolerate his presence. At the time, the Iranian nation was not satisfied seeing him deposed but also wanted him to be put on trial.
Interestingly, exactly the same type of rhetoric was used by Mubarak just before the climax of the Egyptian revolution.
In addition, both of them delivered emotional farewell speeches meant to pull on the heartstrings of the people. But these intrigues did not work and both despots were forced to step down.
Appointing Western-backed agents
In the last days of Mubarak’s rule, rumors began circulating claiming that Omar Suleiman, who had recently been appointed vice president, would succeed Mubarak as president.
Egyptians viewed him as an ardent supporter of Mubarak’s policies and the people did not allow this friend of Israel and the United States to take control of the state.
The shah of Iran also appointed a close ally of the U.S., Shahpour Bakhtiar, as prime minister, but the people did not accept him either.
Diagnosis of cancer
Nearly three decades ago, the last king of the Pahlavi dynasty died of cancer. There are also many reports that Mubarak has been diagnosed with cancer.
Looting the national wealth
The Daily Telegraph recently reported that Hosni Mubarak transferred 3 billion pounds out of the country during the 18 days of the revolution. The British newspaper said that some sources have estimated that his wealth may amount to 40 billion pounds.
Citing authentic documents found in the palaces of the shah and intelligence agency offices, Iranian historians have also confirmed that the family of the shah transferred a large amount of public funds out of the country in 1979.
Lifelong rule
Another similarity between the shah and Mubarak is the way they ruled. Although Mubarak called himself the Egyptian president, his 30-year rule over the country looked just like a monarchy.
The government of the shah of Iran, who ruled the country for almost 40 years, was briefly challenged, but following a coup in 1953, he returned to power and governed Iran until the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Not welcomed by overlords
Neither of the dictators was welcomed by his overlords, despite all the services they had provided to the United States and they were not able to obtain permission to reside in the United States.
This shows that dictators supported by the West take the same type of desperate measures to save themselves in their last days, but they are always abandoned by their patrons when they are no longer useful.