PAHLAVI

Arj so what you are saying is you can't think of a single action

where the late shah used absolute power.  Good. I apprecate you admitting that if even indirectly.  So at no point did he use absolute power durng his rule.  Of course you know that we can not just call him a Dictator based on what he may have done in the future, so I feel we are making some progress.  Our quality of thought if becoming more accurate.  Well done for coming to the conclusion shah never used absolute power.  Now if I can get this point across to others like VPK or DK I feel I will be making some progress.

VPK re arrogance, if a thought contradicts the reality I know for sure then I cannot accept your views with out evidence, you may want to disagree with the report I mentioned done by professors from Harvard/Yale/Oxford/Cambridge/Milan regarding North Africa and the Middle east including Iran and say I am not even consdering your views.  The study was called Limit to Growth.  My views, expressed arrogantly lets agree, on the other hand have come based on asking the people running the policies of countries exactly what is going on, it's why i am letting you in on it and giving you an opportunity to have freedom by changing your own mnd based of important evidence every iranian should be aware of and considering before they come up with their own understanding of our difficulties and their solutions.  I hallucinated you made your mind up from the media only because your view is supported by it and in addition is completely different from what the people in power are doing in their actions.  Which is supported by Limit To Growth.

Re abdication

Dear VPK, I agree with most of what you said. Indeed, If Shah had not concentrated so much power in himself, he could've abdicated in favour of queen Farah as a viceroy until RP graduated and came of age. But, then again, that would've required a real constitutional system in which the day-to-day state affairs were governed by a head of government (PM) who would be elected on limited terms! But the way Shah had ruled, being an autocrat, I doubt if he even would've trusted the young RP with so much power!

Arj re: Shah

Yes he was not stable because of the medication he got. It would have been a good idea if he were to abdicate in 1976 and appoint a regent. There were two problems.

• A person who is not stable does not know he is not stable. 
• He had removed from power anyone able to do the job.

The obvious solution is a democratically elected term limited leader. Then when the leader gets unstable you vote them out. It would have prevented the need for a regent. Because the PM would have  the helm and no the nations would function.

I say all we may do is to learn. I have learned a powerful leader may be needed. But as a last resort and should be term limited with no question of extending it. Too much power even not absolute is bad. Longer you have it worse it gets.

A note

Dear VPK, My point was not to compare Iran to Iraq, or Sadam to Reza Khan (albeit both despots), but rather the adverse effects of attempt at forceful change and/or banning of certain social practices in a society. Of course, the new Iraqi government did not force anyone to join the mourning rituals. Noetheless, images of bloody heads of the tens of thousands of Iraqis in Ghameh Zani rituals on the streets of Najaf, Basra and Karbala were tell-tale signs of a severre social backlash to the ban policy! Perhaps if the ban had not taken place, such horrific rituals would've been abandoned by the majority of the young Iraqis who took part in!

P.S. Simorgh, I choose to ignore your diatribe since it's intended as personal attack rather than legitimate questions, as it's based on several brainless assumptions (as to I being 9 having left Iran, on, or after the revolution, my family having enjoyed a high standard of living or my support for the 1979 revolution). I would not callenge you on any of these for they're rather indicative of your ignorance!   

Arj

Did you live in Iran up to.nine. How ironic. You and your family were comfortably living in Iran and propered under the Shah and enjoyed a good standard of living and social freedoms which were unrivalled anywhere in the Middle East. And then when your revolution goes tits up after you shouted for the Shah to go you left Iran. Why did you not stick it out in Iran at least for the first few years and enjoy the fruit of your revolution. Let me guess. You left Iran for 'personal reasons'.

Words vs actions

Mr. AMPFSM, perhaps it would be a good idea to step away from your keyboard and have a cup of tea, a walk or whatever it is that calms you down before baselessly accusing others of lying, for you sound worked up and agitated!

However, with regards to whether Shah actually meant what he said, said what he meant, didn't mean what he said, or didn't say what he meant, I'm not a mind reader or a psychic to know that! But what I know is that he made that statement about one year before he was toppled. Obviously, he did not get a chance to prove that point to either one of us! Nevertheless, a leader who makes such a controversial statement (or a threat in this case) is either a dictator who is planning a quasi-fascist cult, or if he does not actually mean to impliment his proposed threat, he is a mentally unstable person who is not fit to lead a nation! For sane, stable leaders do not shoot their mouths off, threatening people (who refuse to join a party) with stripping of their citizenship if they actually have no intention of doing so!

The reason we didn't see him enact his threat is that he didn't have due time to do so! Maybe he didn't have the actual intention of doing so and he had just lost his mind! Certainly, I'm not the one to know! 

.

.

Arj

In Iraq they removed the ban but do not require everyone to participate. That is the right thing to do. Allow people to choose what to do. No argument there. I also agree this whole blog is becomeing less productive.

I know many Iranian women wear chador; obviously. If they did when Shah was in power they are more likely to do it today. I travelled in Iran and saw it for myself! You do not need to tell me :-) 

But Iranian women who leave even from villages give up the hijab. I know this because I see them in America all the time. They come here right off the plane and never put on a chador. Very few still have the scarf but they are in a small miniority. 

Amirparviz

You may not realize it but you sound really arrogant. My views are not based on media rather on many different things. I am not going to get into the match of insulting people. Or claiming that I know more than them.

It is exactly your kind of "superiority" attitude that puts us against each other. You are not willing to even entertain my ideas may have merit. How do you expect a nation to be run? Not every one is going to agree with you so what do you want to do.

Two choices: be willing to listen or reject them out of hand. You have decided to do the latter. I may disagree with Arj. But at least we are able to respect the other persons view. Without acting superior; with you it is your way or nothing.

Re use of force

Dear VPK, This whole exchange seems to be a waste of time! My point was about the consequences of the use of force as opposed to a national consent or even discourse with regards to implementing social changes in a society. And that is not only limited to Hejab, Reza Shah or Iran for that matter. For instance, in post-Sadam Iraq, some of the first things to be repealed was the ban on Asura/Tasua Sineh Zani and even Ghameh Zani! This was not due to Sadam necessarily being progressive and the people being backward, but it was rather their collective memory enacting their grievences with regards to Saddam's forceful, thuggish and authoritative ways of implimenting what he saw fit to be the law of the land! The same collective memory enacted the grievences of the people of Iran with the tuggish and forceful ways of Reza Khan' attempt at impliminting social changes!

In a civil society with a functioning political system, laws and regulations are changed, modified or even scrapped once the rein of power shifts hands from one political inclination to another through proper legal procedures. Nonetheless, such shifts of power may create a see-saw effect in a society going through drastic transitions! Yet, imagine the severity of such see-saw effects once the shift is from a ruler who holds absolute power to another! Especially if such shifts are laced with historical, social grievences and brought about through violent means! The harsh reactions to the downfall of the Pahlavi dynasty (including mandatory hejab) were a prominent example of such grievences! At the time of the 1979 revolution, as a kid I heard first hand accounts (as many others here might have) of Reza Shah's forceful ways of implimenting his de-veiling policy -- even from old ladies who were not necessarily religious or conservative or illiterate, yet they nonetheless felt violated and aggrevated when Reza Shah's police chased them in the streets to take their hejab and rip them into pieces.

Yet, the historical consequences of drastic social changes (especially when made through forceful means) should be evaluated in a due historical course. In historical context (which includes the last 32 years), Reza Shah's hejab policy. not only failed to eliminate hejab from the Iranian culture and society (as he had originally intended), but it still remains one of the pivotal issues of women's rights in Iranian society nearly a century on! So, could anyone in their right mind call that a success? I doubt it! For nearly every other Moslim-majority country around us has more or less the same ratio of observing hejab and status of women's rights in general, with the difference that in Iran there's a mandatory hejab policy in effect! And the sad part is that these countries did not have to go theough a forceful de-veiling ordeal as Iran did under Reza Shah either! Did Morrocco, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon... have a Reza Khan to forcefully emancipate their women, or did the history take its more or less natural course?!

Even Shah had realized the futility of his father's attempt to eliminate hejab from Iranian society, as he tried to stay away from it, for the majority of Iranian women still wore hejab! Nonetheless, people's collective memory (and especially religious conservatives) saw Shah's reign as an extention of that of Reza Shah, hence the downfall of Shah's as the collapse of the entire Pahlavi dynasty! I'm not sure if a private party could be considered as a proper sample population of an entire nation, but remind you that in most small towns and even many such large cities as Ghom, Yazd, Kashan, Kerman, Mashad, Ardabil, Zanjan, Ghazvin, Hamedan.... an overwhelming majority of women still wear chador. Not that I support such practice (on quite the contrary, I believe it's a setback to women's rights), but I choose to see the realities of our land as they are rahter than living in romantic fatasies!   

VPK I appreciate your thoughts, however you are out of the loop

as far as the underlyng political elements as to what is going on regardng Iran you are out of the loop, which is why I disagree with you on the ability to work with the USA/UK/France. Your views are based on the media not reality.  The West is opposed to iran having a developed economy.  Russians gave iran the capability to have a steel industry, this lead to the USA asking/insisting that Iran and saudi's and opec raise the price of oil which they used to strengthen the dollar and which they used to sell weapons, using oil prices to blame shah saying it was his oil price rise that caused their stagflation (which they had him do). They used all this to create the story of the petrotyrant, the dictator of oil, they were the ones through kissinger wanting it and then cynically using it to destabilize iran and remove the shah.

Now russians have given Iran a nuclear plant, Once again the russians have done something which is the basis for regime change in Iran for something far worse.  You just may not be aware of the science behind the policies of the west.  This is why Reza II brother was killed and why Reza II openly states that he will not lead a constitutional monarchy to replace IRI unless this issue is resolved and Iran is allowed to develop its economy, hence he is in danger like his brother too. 

With Reza II they don't have the excuse of not being a democrat as he is clear he will not be involved in politics, however he has made it clear that if he is going to be a figure head for Iran, he won't do it if the politicians are not free in developing irans economy and buying and getting what they want.  Hence the USA is using the MEK to remove the regime since it doesn't want a democratic Iran, that is Free to develop itself.  That is not up for negotiation, no matter how democratic Iran is.

If you want to get in to the loop you need to read the scientific reports in the 1970's by the club of Rome and why they will never want Freedom for the middle east, north africa or Iran, otherwise the basis of your thoughts will be incorrect as long as club of rome is the basis for which the west acts. 

I hope this helps you get informed and open your mind to how different reality is than what you hear in the media.  Read club of Rome.

Rastakhiz

Yes Shah said that you should either join or leave. But he did not do anything to force people. My father a staunch Monarchist never joined and nothing happened. He even got to do whatever he wanted.

The worst thing about Rastakhiz was that it gave enemies of Shah more fodder. It also pissed off people like my father. No one likes threats specially from the King. No matter if the threat is never carried out. It gets people nervous.

Many had got ready to jump ship if Shah came after them for not joining Rastakhiz. Therefore when revolution came they ran instead of fighting to preserve the system. The problem was I repeat that Shah alienated his natural base.

I disagreed with your lies Arj, they word his words NOT actions

which your statement implied.

So below is what I said to your comment, ackowledging this statement was a mistake and of course I know that many people have never put their foot in their mouth or ever made a big mistake. What he said was no reflection on what he, his team and/or the country actually did, which was lawful.

Your comment:

"forcing people to either become members of his Rastakhiz party or leave
the country is not considered dictatorship in your book?! " Arj 

Can you see your own lies or should I point them out to you?

No one was forced into rastakhiz with real coercion, many said no and
nothing happened to them.  Yes He did say leave the country, likely out
of desperation, but did he do anything????????? No he didn't do anything
unlawful and was free to say any stupid thing he wanted, no one was
forced to leave the country for not joining rastakhiz. None. Nada.
Zilch. Hich kas.

There are thoughts these do not make a person have absolute power

There are words these also do not make a person have absolute power

Then There are actions, this is what makes a person have and use absolute power, please give us one single example of Shahs actions where he used absolute power, unless you have an act you can theorize all you want about him having absolute power, when did he ever use absolute power?

What if post

My last post to MG was that Shahs worst mistakes were in his last 10 years. Here is what if he had done things differently. What if:

• Jashne Honar had been turned into a celebration of Iranian arts. Both to honor masters and promote art based industries like carpet making. The main focus would have been on calligraphy; poetry; traditional painting; traditional music; tribal arts music and dances; carpet making; hand craft like Khatam and Mina. This would have gone well with people and minorities. It would also have been good for business. No Stockhausen!
• The 2500 year celebration would have been an Iranian event. Where leaders of various groups were invited to express their ideas openly.
• Instead of Rastakhiz he would have done nothing and no change to the calendar.
• By 1976 Shah would have told people he is sick and on his way out. Right then worked out a plan to abdicate in favor or his son. RP was going to be 18 by October 1978. At which time he would have taken over.
• This would have given people a chance to pause and wait. Maybe Reza Pahlavi will change things and open the government. From 1976 to 1978 people would have waited to see how RP turns out.
• Reza Pahlavi would have taken over in 1978. Immediately made additional changes.
• Freedom of press would have been restored. No banning of papers and that kind of thing.
• Parliament reformed. No vetting of candidates. Honest non rigged elections pick a non subservient parliament. Shah still has to sign any legislation but majlis gets to pass what it wants.
• Dissolve the useless senate and save some money.

This would have given Shah a face saving way out and Iran freedom.

آقایان و خانمها خسته نباشید

به هر حال خسته نباشید وهرچند که تا ابد هم
ادامه دهید تغییرچندانی در دیدگاه نظر دهندگان
حاصل نخواهد شد ولی خوانندگان استفاده میکنند

و هرچند که حافظ فرموده

کمال سر محبت ببین نه نقص گناه
که هر که بی هنر افتد نظر به عیب کند

و گروهی تنها چشم دیدن پای زشت طاووس
را دارند ، ولی اینهم حکمت و صلاح پروردگار است  

MG a response

I am not a monarchist but a realist. To me the Pahlavi did a lot of good but with an iron fist. Maybe all this would have been possible democratically I don't know. But to claim Iran was so high on civiil society is pure BS.

Alright: who killed Kasravi? Who killed anyone who dared so much as say one word against Islamic canon. Iranians were and still are going like morons beating their chest for Irmam on Ashura. The dumber ones use an axe on their own heads! Do you say this is a civil society. More like a society of morons; uneducated idiots. God I sound like Fesenjoon oh no! I agree by the time of the Shah Iran was ready for more not less freedom. Rastakhiz was really very stupid idea.

However democracy is not a panacea. People under democracy often vote for things that are impossible. For example vote for benefits but no taxes. Nevertheless at least they have to take the blame since they voted for it. 

Shahs mistakes were mostly in the last 10 years.

I will post a what if next.

Tell me what you think then.

When it comes to democracy in Iran, some Monarchists are the

the ones that don't get it. Some others do admit their mistakes, and have learned from them.

It's actaully very simple:

Iran had one of the most advanced Civil Societies in the ME. Both Reza shah and his son, simply destroyed that civil society upon coming to power.

What went even further wrong after the '53 Coup was a promotion of Kashani type 'politicians,' creation of SAVAK, cooperation of this new agency with forces like Hojatieh, creation of a single-party sytstem through Rastakhiz Party.  All this authoritarian, though towards the end it  was gettin very toralitarian, led to a :l ack of democracy in Iran, a lack of understanding of different social forces active (since any healthy discussion of politics was banned), and basically a trap.

Publishing of that stupid letter in Etellat, turned Khomenin (hitherto known only to activists and Bazari, and some religious types) into a national icon.

All and all monarchists are a lot more responsible for many problems in Iran. Only if you could man up, step up and own it. Only if...

VPK this is exactly what I meant some don't get it

"Forced Hejab" has nothing to do with Reza Shah the Great. One monster was born in Iran back in 1979 which has specific characteristics. it follows retarded idea of nomad tribe of arabs 1400 years ago. Now, people are trying to read more into it than it is. Some was saying it is anti imperialism, some was saying it is anti communism. Recently some are saying it is anti iran culture or history. Now some say it is reaction to Reza shah ban on hejab that these monsters are firm about forcing hejob.

    No, my friends this monster is completely ignorant of iran history or culture . It has it's own agenda which is retarded, barbaric, based on idea of lizard eater desert arabs 1400 years ago. It's principals and whole ideology doesn't fly with standards of civilized society. Totally barbaric and it has nothing to do with shah or Reza shah the Great. That was the concept I was talking about and you said that you were offended by my words : "some people just don't get it". Still after 32 years some people has no clue what is the characteric of this barbaric republic. They are trying to explain their none sense behavior by logical terms which is waste of time. 

Forced Hijab

Is not becuause of Reza Shah banning it and the trauma. It is because Iran became a theocracy led by an ass*** . If it was really the "trauma" people would willingly do it. But they don't. 

Also the Shah allowed voluntery hijab for years before the revolution. Any one who wanted to wear it was allowed to. So why should people react. How is that when I go to a party less than 5% wear a scarf and no one a chador.

Response

You guys are wasting time arguing about Shah. If you want to do something do it about now. 

I already said what I needed to about Shah and his power. No human has absolute power because it is not possible. But Shah has more power than most and was as near absolute as possible.

Now about Rastakhiz. That was the least of my worries. Who cares if there is one party; many or none. Politicians are a bunch of crooks and never help people. It was just a bunch of political types who cared about this ***. I preferred if Shah had just banned all parties and been done with it. We got two parties in USA that mean anything. Both run by and filled with ***holes. Their big accomplishment this week to reaffirm in "God We Trust".

These were shah's words, not mine!

Dear AMPFSM, these were the exact words of Shah in response to opposition to Rastakhiz party membership: "Those who don't want to be a member of the Rastakhiz party are not Iranian and ought to get their passport and leave the country." I have no reason to make that up! I was old enough (9-10 years old) to personally remember Shah say that on national Iranian TV (circa 1977-78) in response to a reporter who brought up the issue of the opposition to compulsory membership of Rastakhiz (whom he referred to as "traitors")! Of course, he did not get to realize his threat/suggestion in practical terms, but that's what he had planned to do had he lasted long enough!

If you don't believe me, you can ask those who were old enough back then to remember it (unfortunately, I do not have access to that footage) !

Arj I want to Sincerely Thankyou for something important

If life we are sometimes manipulated by others with a motive to lie to ourselves, there is nothing shameful about it, the shame is not yours or mine, it belongs to the people that propogated the lies in the first place.  Whether its the man in the sky or the afterlife with virgins or in other areas the shame does not belong to humanity.  When I read your clear "Untruth implying people were brutally coerced to join and then expelled from iran if they resisted, NONE of which actually occured, I realized how powerless we can be made and even misguided at a fundamental level and how we are not to blame, we are lying to ourselves, because so many have been lying to manipulate us. 

After thousands of images and news reports we are doing it to ourselves.  This is the problem of the new world and its leaders need to learn to cope with it and it will be an immense challenge.  This is what is at the heart of manufactiring consent among people.  Tell people a lie 20 times and the truth 3 times and people follow the lie and perpetuate it in themselves.  By the way did you come up with some examples of actually using absolute power by the shah?  Me neither : ) , VPK DK anyone?

Arj of course I'm not kidding.

Is The Chinese system of one party rule, oppresive/dictatotial anyone can be elected, differences and competing ideologies can and do still exist, competition within the party for committee positions exist.  I know you live in a world where most of the thoughts are not unique or original and mostly only one point of view is portrayed in 55 shades, where the western nations spend 2.5 times as much on advertising & media, books as they do on military budgets to teach this one unified message, but do you have to let go of your own reasoning?

China is no dictatorship either.  And its a serious contender to the USA in the future.  Lets think about the chinese argument in favor of a one party system, exactly like the rastakhiz proposed.  When you see not based on opinion but scientific analysis of actions of politicians, in the USA voting democratic or republican in practice they are 99% the same, sure they do abetter job at attracting dfferent types of people, red necks on the republican side, college educated on the dem side, but action wise they are 99% the same, they back each other up in private and in public they fight and argue but at the end of the day, when you vote for one or the other the 99% exact same outcome comes to pass, at the presidential level the differences are extreme, and both the candidates and the positions are set up and controlled even more at the level of the 2 institutions/partys.  They literally negotiate before and both aim to produce the same outcome.  The Small differences that exist are limted to only on the issue of relations with the outside world.  All this being the case One party systems are not such a difference in practice.  Does any of this make sense or is it just too much?  Dictatorship would occur if any one person used absolute power, like saddam, khomeini etc Since we don't have a single case of shah using absolute power, what must we conclude?

"forcing people to either become members of his Rastakhiz party or leave
the country is not considered dictatorship in your book?! " Arj 

Can you see your own lies or should I point them out to you?

No one was forced into rastakhiz with real coercion, many said no and nothing happened to them.  Yes He did say leave the country, likely out of desperation, but did he do anything????????? No he didn't do anything unlawful and was free to say any stupid thing he wanted, no one was forced to leave the country for not joining rastakhiz. None. Nada. Zilch. Hich kas.

Arj' mistakes

"Amazingly, idol-worshippers among us, whether of Hezbollahi or Shahollahi kind, stoop to any level and spare no servility to not only aggrandize their idol " Arj

No my friend these people here are Iran-worshippers, not individual worshippers. Don't make mistake. Individuals comes and goes, Iran remains for ever. Individuals are mortal, Iran is immortal and eternal. Reza Khan was a big servant of Iran, that is why our nation respect him, love him and honour him. It is because of Iran and nothing else as you imagine.

The word "Shahollahi" is an insult to our rich history and our great culture. Put the word "Allah" next to shah is big contempt to our history. Allah is extracted from the mind of lizard eater arabs. That is NOT Persian. We have beautiful word describing the creator of this world and it is "PARVARDEGAR". If you mix shah with Parvardegar, it would be okay if it serves your agenda, but please don't put allah next to shah.

 2 words brought misery and devastation for our country for last 3 decades. A. Allah  B. Khaleq

These 2 words should be deleted from our daily conversation.

Think of this :  Whenever you are walking on street in public area in any foreign country, you are carrying over 5000 history of Padeshahi (monarch) on your shoulder, either you like it or dislike it. It is your history and you have to be proud of it.

sincerely,

Siavash

Are you kidding?!

Declaring all political parties illegal and forcing people to either become members of his Rastakhiz party or leave the country is not considered dictatorship in your book?!

Arj so Logically i'm back to asking for a single example

of the Shah exercising absolute power?  I have thought long and very hard, discussed it with many people none can give me a single case.  That's strange don't you think, that a person labelled by the world media a dictator doesn't have a single case of using absolute power.  I'm hoping VPK can give me one case since that's the basis for him calling the late shah a dictator.  DK is welcome to give me a case too if he's reading this.

For example when Mossadegh dissolved parliament

That was against the constitution, that was not within his power, that was acting with absolute power, no matter what the reason.  When Shah responded that he was no longer prime minister and should step down, that was out of a respect for the constitution.  He was defending the constitution firstly and secondly doing it in a way that was written in the constitution to be his lawful right.  Namely at any time parliament becomes dissolved, the king can remove a prime minister and appoint another one. So legally this is case is crystal clear.  And his respect for the constitution was based on wisdom.

Wisdom is a quality iranians are discovering matters alot after 1979.

Arj a one party system was in NO WAY against the constitution.

Of course he had Respect for the constitution.  He never once did a single thing against the constitution. 

Example?!

Dear AMPFSD, I believe by now, the burdon of proof should pretty much be on you to prove that he wasn't a dictator! However, if you want an example, how about constitution?! Did he have any respect for the constitution? Oh, I know... that's to vague a notion for you! May I then point to the elephant in the room: Rastakhiz party?!

Arj i agree with one comment of yours to VPK.

You said, There are no patriotic dictators.  I add dictators if one understands their meaning cannot be benevolent.

That's why I say, and I know, that the Shah was no Dictator/Oppressor, people that experienced the IRI now know what an oppressor is/dictator. Shah was a Freedom creating Liberator and sadly he just never had the educated people to know that.  Some people eroniously think if you don't have a democracy you are a dictator.    

If he was a dictator/oppressor give me one example of when he acted with absolute power.  Forget words/show me a single action.