Preparatiion for 2500-Year Celebrations

Tehran decorated with lights, banners and...



Darius Kadivar

by Manam_Babak on

Main point of my argument was on the subject line of my comment, which I thing you got it, and hit a nerve. We all know he was a not a king caliber, and ran every chance he got. The point is he could have have sacrifised himeself for Iran, rather sarifised Iran for himself, and his family. I may have gotten dates, and intriget detail of our constitution wrong, but the were Iran is today is not completely IRI's doing. I personaly blame Islam for our downfall, however Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Khomaini, and Jimi Carter are not inocent either!

Darius Kadivar

Manam_Babak Shah Put in Power after WW 2 ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Seems my dear fellow you have a problem getting your chronology right.

The Shah became King on 16th of Sept, 1941 upon his father's forced abdication.  

No one put him into Power since by Birth right he was Crown Prince and under the Constitution he was thrust into the Position of King upon his own Father's removal.

The Allies did not put the Shah on the Throne they merely did not oppose his accession to it. Precisely because they knew that was the rule of the land and that it was not in their interest anyhow to oppose it otherwise the country would have fallen apart and they were not in a mood to want to have supervise Iran as if it were a colony like India. Hence leaving the affairs of the State and domestic policies to the Iranian Leader but with a firm eye on every move he made.

Iran was occupied for 5 years during the entire war. It was a humiliating situation for the young Monarch than anything else. 


Contrary to what you claim The Shah never Promised democracy but merely to respect the Constitition which itself was not a democratic one since all executive powers were in the Shah's hand anyhow. Iran was in no way a Democratic Nation be it during his 12 year rule where he merely did not interfere in the affairs of the government nor was it a democratic nation under Mossadegh's rule since the constitution itself was imperfect in comparison to democratic standards:


Cyrus Amir-Mokri on Pros and Cons of 1906 Constitution


It was however a Monarchy.


Now One can legitimately question why it wasn't a genuinely democratic one but you cannot use that as an argument to claim he had to behave democratically given that non of his predecessors had either all the more that very constitution he had pledged his oath upon was not drafted to be a democratic one in the first place.


For that to happen you needed to ammend the Constitution first and then claim that Mossadegh was democratically elected. Which was not the case since the Prime Minister of the time like all his predecessors were appointed by the King.


The elitist Parliament which elected Mossadegh itself at the time was not itself entirely representative of the nation since at large our nation was still largely rural and illiterate many people didn't even know how to write down their name or read a ballot box.


To be able to have democracy you first need to have to educate society. That was the purpose of the White Revolution.


But given Mossadegh's behavior during the events of 53 and the fact that he took upon himself to dissolve the parliament , The Shah was never to trust the Intellectuals and the Political elite again. 


Hence the creation of the Rastakhiz Party which was a mistake from a purely democratic perspective but in no way was it illegitimate.


The Shah never claimed to be democratic, he merely claimed to be patriotic. 


Some knowledge in Constitutional history wouldn't hurt you know ... It would avoid you to embarrass yourself ...






Shah was not overthrown by people, rather by his own actions

by Manam_Babak on

Soon after WWll , He was put in power , having signed,
and promised  to take his position as the
king in a parliamentary monarch type of government, where the priminester
elected by the people from an active and elected party would head the government.
However he turned against the people of Iran by dismantling the parliament, executing
Mosadegh, and all other parties except the one he created, and headed. from
then on, absolute power brought absolute corruption, and the rest is history!

Darius Kadivar

Fatollah No he's not ... ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on


Like for all Royal Families who are fortunate to have offsprings His bloodline lives on ... 

ROYAL PROFILES: Crown Prince Reza & Shahbanou Farah on German TV (1985)

Crown Prince Reza’s First Public Speech in Germany (1991)

MAN OF THE YEAR: Crown Prince Reza Elected by Radio Farda Listeners (2012)


Unless of course you have no clue about what the Monarchy means ...  

MONARCHY MATTERS: Khosro Fravahar say’s Iranian Jomhurykahs live in denial 


Or that you are a Jomhurykhah which is your right ...


But then don't claim to explain something you clearly don't understand ...


ROYAL FORUM: Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican


Kind Regards,





An Unapologetic Constitutional Monarchist




"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow.






by Fatollah on

what difference does it make? he's dead and long gone! continue fighting among yourselves...  



by shushtari on

A wonderful time- I miss my wonderful vatan. 

And those who are bad mouthing Reza shah should realize that without ezra shah kabir Iran would have worse off than afghanistan


I guarantee you he's in heaven now

God bless his wonderful soul 

Darius Kadivar

First Amendment following your logic

by Darius Kadivar on

For someone like you who believes that Religion is the "Opium of the People" yet along with your likeminds :


"Lalaee": Confederation of Iranian Student Choir

The Baader Meinhof Complex (TRAILER)



wholeheartingly gave the keys of the ambulance to a religious madman ( or in your words the shaky sandal-wearer old man...) whom you naively thought you could equally manipulate only to run away like the rest of our miserable lot into exile ( apparently in the very land of the 'Great Satan' you and your likeminds loathed so much) while leaving the scalpel in the hands of a murderer :


HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: IRI's Reign of Terror Begins (BBC Report 1979) 


or rather a group of murderers:


pictory: MKO leaders meeting under Khomeiny's portrait (1978)


REPUBLICAN OFFSPRING: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in Savak Prison (1970's)


REPUBLICAN OFFSPRING: Massoud Rajavi at Tehran University during Presidential Campaign (1980)


pictory: Ahmad Khomeiny Training with Cuban guerrilla fighters (mid 1970's)


pictory: Ahmad Khomeiny receiving RPG-7 training in Lebanon (mid 1970's)


pictory: Yazdi, Castro and Pretty Interpreter (1978) 


instead of a qualified surgeon ...


RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy (Newsweek interview,in London 1984)

VOCAL MINORITY: Pro Shah and Pro Bakhtiar Demos amidst 1979 Revolution



Don't you think that prior to lecturing from your highhorse of moral ( not to say moralistic) superiority on the "filth" you claimed to get rid of you owe an apology (to say the least) for the collateral victims of your poor choice ? ...


BOOK: EVEN AFTER ALL THIS TIME By Afschineh Latifi ( A Memoir ) 


pictory:(FOR REFERENDUM BASHERS) Women Punched in Face by Revolutionaries


HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: IRI's Reign of Terror Begins (BBC Report 1979)  


Or is your excuse the same as Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler and Good Ol' Benito that one cannot make an omlet without breaking some eggs ? ...


VIRTUE IN TERROR: Maximilien Robespierre and the Reign of Terror (BBC)


In which case May I ask to be reinbursed then ? ...


Cause the omlet proved to be totally undigestable ... 




Thank you "comrad" in advance for an openminded conversation,



An unapologetic Constitiutional Monarchist



"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow. 


I was once called a "filth" by Masoud Kazemzadeh

by anglophile on

Thanks to your wonderful explanation FA jaan, now I know why I am so attracted to the Pahlavis: we have something in common :)) 

First Amendment

Of the filthy Pahlavis...

by First Amendment on

Filth is not a relative term........the fact that some of us consider some of mullahs corrupt and unsuitable for living outside a prison cell or a mental institution does not vindicate the Pahlavis.........for example without any parallel, no one can say Mussolini was a good one just because Berlusconi is or was is that simple. Every ruler or system or institution should be judged on its own merits...........Comparative studies in politics is almost always designed for off-kilter approaches and skewed conclusions.............

Going back to the subject of the blog: That was all, that the public got from those lavish ceremonies, some lights,flags and banners.........Iranians in general had no access to the main event.........

You, my friend, can stay unapologetic for as long as you want; but under no circumstances can you boast your support for constitutional monarchy as long as you continue your relentless support for the filthy Pahlavis........they are the reason our 25-century tradition of monarchism (constitutional, or not) was uprooted by the will of people under the leadership of a shaky sandal-wearer old man...

Darius Kadivar

First amendment Jan I often hear you say "Filthy" Pahlavis

by Darius Kadivar on

Could you please elaborate on that and how you feel what replaced them is less "Filthy" let alone more glorious for Iran's "image" as a "cradle of civilization" ? ... 


Mullah Crying Fake about Imam Hussain (as)


Thank you "comrad" in advance for an openminded conversation,



An unapologetic Constitiutional Monarchist



"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow.




by Shemirani on

 Thanks for sharing !

Wonderful video, i wish i could cross the screen and just be there, breathing the air, feeling the atmosphere ! Dashtim dar solh o safa o samimiat va khoshi va amniat zendegi mikardim , dard begirid ba in anghelab ke hamechiz o az beyn bord ! 

In 1978 Iran needed a Reform (a political reform)the rest was going better day by day,But ill-intentioned people did a Revolution Now Iran needs a revolution ( for a new constitution law) but same  people are talking of reforms !





My freind ghalam-doon!

by P_J on

There are those who are true, real believers of monarchy, that I have no problem with. Then WE have the Shahollahi/Hezbollahi crowd, who are totally divorced from reality and for most are paid hustlers , doing their level best, although feeble mindedly, to rewrite the history of recent past, mudding the waters and/or causing CONFUSION.

They must think or believe that by lying repeatedly they can convert the truth!

These followers of the infamous NAZI propaganda tsar and MASS murderer Joseph Gobbles must follow his teaching closely, where he said that; when outrageously large lies are repeated often enough, people would believe them.


GARBAGE that a murdering TRAITOR like Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was democratic, despite being a TYRANT is not only a stretch but quite STUPID and frankly NEW to me.

The real monarchist although believing in monarchy, condemn Pahlavi regime for its inhumanity, corruption, MURDER and other excesses, that led to and caused the empowerment of, and ascendance of the other group of UNDEMOCRATIC murderers like Khomeini/Khamenei and the rest.

Finally; those who STILL have the audacity of defending the KNOWN CRIMINAL Pahlavi regime are either the old SAVAKI murderers, who committed murder and caused mayhem to the innocent civilians, like their counterpart and successors the Basidgi/Hezbollahi brethren today, or are PAID Pahlavi agents on the EMBEZZLED Pahlavi loot or have their head in the sand…Who you referred to is one of them!  


"amirparviz", I'm puzzled!

by ghalam-doon on

You say the Shah was democratic. I really want to know how you define a democratic form of government. Democracy has many preconditions and we cannot just claim someone is democratic because we see it that way. I don't want to go into details but many people suggest a monarch who closes down newspapers, limits free speech, creates a single party system, imprisons and murders people for their beliefs cannot be defined as a democratic leader.

But of course I could be wrong. Perhaps there is a new defenition. I try to keep an open mind.

Also, I take it that you're a monarchist. So how do you envision the future government in Iran, a true constitutional monarchy or something that we had under the Shah, since we cannot have it both ways.


The late shah really took alot on his shoulders and Iranians

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Benefitted as their country developed as a direct result.  His involvement was Necessary in Irans affairs, due to excessive foreign meddling in order to thwart Iran.  Peace, Progress, Human Rights, Freedom and Justice were all better during the late shahs time, these are true facts that can never be ignored or belittled.  The Shahs record speaks of accomplishments that inspire Iranians today. 

freedom and justice, democracy and human rights, Not one of these 4 are
genuine goals of the west... these are infact deadly deceits as the west
aims to Africanize the region as it bring forces like muslim
brotherhood to power, the wests #1 goal for iran being to weaken,
thwart and keep iran underdeveloped.  This is the true reason why the
Leadership of the WEST loves extremism for Iran & betrayed the late
shah as nothing else helps them achieve their #1 goal as I stated

Its why the majority of Iranians within Iran who experienced the days
before 1979 love the late Shah so sincerely and wish they had not been
deceived regarding what he was doing for Iranians and who he was
defending Iranians from both within ( anti-secular mullahs,
anti-monarchists and commies) and without Iran (the west which opposed
his development of iran tooth and nail).  The Late Shah based on his
accomplishments before he was betrayed and murdered proved by his
actions he was a truly democratic leader both in heart and by hand,
despite Iran not yet having a democratic society or system.

First Amendment


by First Amendment on

Thank heavens that people's mighty Revolution in 1979 uprooted the dictatorial regime of the corrupt shah and his filthy family........

maziar 58


by maziar 58 on

some of our hamvatans have that .........

cann't even remember or acknowledge those happy hours;be it for watching all the happy blinking lights for "jashnhaye2500 sal"

Or even dokhtar bazi during sine zani in moharram.

the IRR took away all those and their supporters are doing the same here in ghorbat.

thanks                Maziar


Dear ghalam-doon! I could not agree more!

by P_J on

True Monarchs are not only the extension of, but an indirect representative of their people.

The imposed ones, i.e. Pahlavi, who are FORCED on people/nation(s), having no grass root popular support, have no other alternative but to dictate.

There are other cases like; Mobarak, Sadam, Assad, Marcos, Noriega, both Pahlavis and a whole bunch of others whose allegiances were/are not to their people, but to their masters, the old/new colonial powers that had empowered them.

That’s why democracy and democratic institutions are so important…also, having leaders, i.e. president(s), that can be replaced ONCE every so many years is essential…added to that is the freedom of expression and thought.

I am sure and hopeful that we are going to get there sooner or later!          


Can it be that it was all so simple then

by Milan on

یکی‌ از شادترین خاطراتم: ۱۲ سالم بود  با خانواده همه آبلمبو در یک فولکس ۶۱، غرق در نور، مشغول طواف در میادین تهران


Dear P_J, I'm with you

by ghalam-doon on

After writing that short post, I thought of the exact same thing. I'm not a big fan of monarchy but it has its merits. Some argue a monarch could unite a divided country like Iran with many different ethnic groups. But a monarch acts as the head of the state and never interferes with the day-to-day running of the country. That's not what the Shah or his father before him were doing. Queen Elizabeth is respected and admired in her country and around the world because she acts like a real monarch: someone who keeps the country united and just gives advice to the head of the government.

I've been told there was a time that the Shah was really loved by his people. They picked up the car that he was driving in and carried it over their shoulders! He could remain that loving father of the nation. But he chose a very different path.




Dear ghalam-doon!

by P_J on

Your KEEN observation compelled me a response! 

I think history ONLY repeats itself if and when we don’t learn from it.

As you correctly observed, there were no visible public HAPPINESS or JUBILATION, in fact the opposite may have been true, since this whole sophomoric charade was a public IMPOSION, at a very high cost!

Compare that to the celebration or the JUBILEE of Queen Elizabeth’s 60th anniversary to thrown…an entirely volunteery celebration with general public participation.

 A Marked DIFFERENCE between democracy and A DARK VICIOUS dictatorship!

Red Wine


by Red Wine on

راز درون پرده چه داند فلک؟ خموش
ای مدعی نزاع تو با پرده دار چیست؟


Nostalgic for sure

by ghalam-doon on

Like when someone watches an abgooshti Farsi film or an old street where one grew up.

But do we see anyone actually celebrating?

Do we see people jumping up and down in joy?

And then came the celebration for the 60th anniversary of the  Pahlavi Era. And then came the fall of the Pahlavis..

It seems our history tends to keep repeating itself. The regimes, both past and present, celebrate their grandeur and people are silent witnesses, other than the ones who are given gifts and "Sandis" to look happy and momentarily content.

Mardom Mazloom

شکر نعمت؛ نعمتت افزون کند ...

Mardom Mazloom

کفر؛ نعمت از کفت بیرون کند !