Did Iranians make a mistake?


by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

This article is not about your preference of government for the future of Iran. Most Republicans and Most of those for constitutional monarchy are not in favor of revolutions or coups, their ideals require them to both want the people to choose which form of government they want. This is about 1979, the revolution and how we went from light into darkness. My Question is did Iranians make a mistake? We can in this sense discuss all groups and factions, especially pro secular republicans, jebhe melli and all the others who helped the founder of the Islamic Republic come to power.

Lets consider these 2 historical documents for the purpose comparing the founders of the system we were using, to the system Iranians united to bring about.

Rouhollah Khomeini Founding Father of IRI:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, although he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister.

-- Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Qom.

Cyrus the Great Founding Father of the Iranian Monarchy, Shahanshahi:

I am Kourosh (Cyrus), great king, Now that I put the crown of the kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of Ahura, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them while I am alive. I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I never resolve on war to reign. While I am the king I will never let anyone oppress others, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. While I am alive, I will prevent unpaid, forced labour. Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. No one could be penalised for his or her relatives' faults.

-- The charter of Cyrus, a baked-clay Aryan language (Old Persian) cuneiform cylinder, written on the occasion of his crowning on the Nowruz of 539 BC. (Discovered 1878 in the excavation of Babylon)

To both Monarchists and Republicans please refrain from asking the question of which form of government today serves the purpose of cultural and social consensus amongst the various ethnicities and social groups, which is a precondition of democracy. That is another discussion all together.


Recently by amirparvizforsecularmonarchyCommentsDate
The Wests Mission Accomplished in Iran, Iraq and Libya. Now Syria. Part 2. (4 parts)
Nov 29, 2012
Nov 22, 2012
Let Us Unite, With Humanity.
Nov 10, 2012
more from amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

So The Americans Engineered the Takeover Of Their Own Embassy

by JahanKhalili on

That's the logical outcome of this dumb conspiracy theory that claims that the Shah was overthrown by the British or the Americans.

Stupidity pours out of this idea like a waterfall.

But lots of Iranians think its cool.

... and that makes me lose all respect for them. 


So What? Why Believe them?

by JahanKhalili on

Something isn't true just because some important person says its true, or because its in a book.

Now you sound just like the follower of some Ayatollah repeating what he said.

It makes no difference how important someone is.

Something is true or not based on how the conclusion was reached.

If the Shah, the French President and the UK Ambassador really said that stuff, they're full of shit as far as I'm concerned - unless they can show WHY its true.


Where Can the Book Be Purchased?

by JahanKhalili on

These quotes are bullshit.

If they were true, someone would have scanned the pages photostatically, and posted them all over the internet.

They would be easy to find. In fact, you couldn't avoid finding them.

But you can't find them because they don't exist.


The reason some people believe CIA ad Brits were behind 1979

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Starts with Rockefeller, who was his personal friend telling the shah that oil companies were not happy with his country getting 75% commission for oil in combination with Industrializing Iran.  On a personal note I heard with my own ears former British Ambassador Denis Wright say we repeatedly told the shah we would remove him, if he built Iranian Steel. 

Then shah learning CIA had received over $10 billion to be distributed between CIA, Mossad and Mi6.  Him getting confirmation by his own spies in these agencies with help from Russians and French.  Followed up by a book called the secret of the states written by the president of france that was in a meeting discussing carters plan to remove the Shah.

If you were to still say " I mean, really; who could be so stupid as to believe such a thing?
" with the 3 pieces of evidence I just personally shared with you that would stand up in a court of law.  The Shah in interviews, The UK Ambassador with me and the French President in his book written at the time, I have not mentioned bank proof quoted in books regarding $250 million being wired to him from the USA while he was in France, then I think its a waste of time pretending you are not biased on this. 


If you need to feel and see the paper, order the books

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Your comment "I've searched the internet for years, and I have found none." makes me skeptical, if you sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of this for yourself, why did you spend years searching?  Just pay $5 per used book plus shipping, then come back and give us your feed back. 

I need to see it with my own eyes and feel the paper with my own hands and go from there, especially after I see so many muslim sites refuting his shameful work as lies and saying its not true he said no such thing!  After killing neda and blaming the cia, killing the doctor at kahrizak etc etc I have a special hatred for these mullahs.

As for political sites having no scholarly value?  Thats talking like ali gheda and his batcheh akhunds.  Political activism is good and its where we get to see the truth that filthy people try to conceal, like the IRI underground nuclear facilities by its opponents, like the pictures of Abu Ghraib by Democrats, the death by torture of Iraqi's in US Custody by dems.

Dirty mullahs will never learn and become human beings! 



I Stopped Taking Iranians and Their Rumors Seriously LONG AGO

by JahanKhalili on

I guess the stupidity of the rumors had something to do with it.

Like for example the British or the CIA being behind the 1979 revolution.

I mean, really; who could be so stupid as to believe such a thing?

So of course it doesn't surprise me that Iranians are out there spreading nonsense about Ayatollah Khomeini. 


Skepticism Remains

by JahanKhalili on

Two observations: 

1 - That is political activist site. It is NOT a website that has any scholarly authority.

2 - The downloads are html files. Any child can make html and upload it and claim that it is a book written by someone. I can do it, too.

So again: where's the proof?

I've searched the internet for years, and I have found none. 

Guess what my conclusions is?

That its another classic case of Iranians spreading bullshit rumors.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

This sucks.

Its not proof. 


VPK shah had some mean Iranians around him, put in place from

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

outside forces, yet that was the best we could do as a people.  I know you don't believe me and think it was the shah or monarchists, it was not.

You will never find me in support of supporting any of these things as long as I live. Tyranny/Dictatorship, demagogy, censorship, intimidation or bullying. It's why I lost my belief in Allah after reading Koran which I could not finish and yes it was very painful.  So I replaced it with folk music, the tv show "the waltons", a love of culture and positive tradition.



Jahan Khalili I appreciate your skepticism, thats how I am too.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

To down load a version of the book for yourself go here.


Please go to your book store and order the books (they will be used copies and in farsi or arabic) make sure you get the 4th edition(both volumes 1 and 2).If you are a Khomeini fan, I would like to appologize for any pain I may have caused you, that is not my goal, as a fellow human I respect you.

P.S. If this gets taken down like the other sites that have been attacked for revealing the truth, we know who we have to thank as Iranians defending the dignity of our loved ones from the IRI government sponsored oppression occuring even in the west.

I highly recommend you get a physical copy of the book and come back here and with humility say 3 words I have never heard from an Iranian. 

"I am Sorry" you know I will forgive you. : )

If you really want to make my day you can  follow it up with these 7 victorious and even triumphant words,

"Yes Amir, we did make a mistake"

I gave you the link, because you don't come across as a Basiji.


This Is Proof That Iranians Are Making Mistakes Right Now

by JahanKhalili on

They still can't even get their facts straight about their own damned history or religion.

Instead, they repeat made-up bullshit rumors. 

That's pretty stupid, isn't it?


Jeez, You Guys Suck

by JahanKhalili on

The IRI did not usher in an era of sexual molestation of toddlers. This is utter bullshit.

In fact, they executed such people in Iran.

How do you idiots come up with such nonsense? 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


One reason people did not read Khomeini was because it was banned. If wish Shah had not only allowed it but boradcast it on TV! Showed people what a moron Khomeini was. And let them know what they were in for.



Quotations From Tahrirolvasyleh Fabricated?

by JahanKhalili on

I've never seen any Shi'ite scholar verify the claims about the these quotations, and I've seen some of them refute them as utter fabrications.

Where is there a photostatic reproduction of the book? Where is there an evaluation by a university scholar to verify their authenticity?

Apparently, the "opposition" (or the Iranian diaspora who poses as it) - with its supposed emphasis on being "modern" and "progressive" - has no concept of such a thing. 

This is yet another example of Iranians not being able to research anything.

All you do is repeat rumors. 

This little Tahrirolvasyleh gimmick is an example of what the Iranians who are opposed to the IRI can come up with.

Its one of their little "Shahkari"s.

So I really have no more respect for Iranians who are opposed to the IRI than I do for those who fanatically defend it.

These two groups are in fact often remarkably similar.


Anglophile funny and good point.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

That's actually a very smart question, because it brings up a big issue.

The same people (many, many, many, many, many) who feel Iranians did not make a mistake if they were truthful would have to acknowledge that 99.999999% did not read any of khomeini's works or even know his views.

Isn't that foolish? To believe Iranians did not make a mistake and yet also be able to consciously acknowledge almost no one read khomein's books. 

Those of us that know we are fools are not the problem, it's those that are so foolish they don't even know what fools they are indeed.  Let alone fix their mistakes.


Great Point.


The question that must be asked is this:

by anglophile on

How many of those who supported Khomeini's revolution had indeed read his "risaaleh" or his "attahrir-ol-wasilah" (means/instrument of redemption) BEFORE they rallied behind him? Mohammad Agha avval (LOL)  or perhaps I should ask: How many supported Khomeini's revolution AFTER they read the above works? Mohammad Agah Sahimi, shoma avval? 


What I guess I am saying VPK is

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Sometimes in Life you lose big, not because you made a big mistake, but because your closest partner made a mistake.


I agree 100% with you. VPK.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

It's very sad to see a person give his enemies the tools with which to do a hatchet job on him.  It is not because of what he said that he had enemies. There are solely economical reasons for having enemies, but then they use what you say to create more enemies for you because of what you say.  He never imagined the USA would betray him, oil is too vital to the USA.

He was also a true friend of the USA, while 100% independent of them, no one ever got such a good deal from a person. 

Kissinger was one of the only people in the republican admin before Carter won that said, all of you are completely wrong our vital interest is to keep the shah and allow Iran to evolve, because we can not forsee the consequences and likely do not have the capability or leadership to make up for the mistake. 

Funny thing is, the Shah was right on.  The USA has been at war for 10 years and the area is less secure.  They have had zero job growth since 2002, a lost decade, and can look forward to another decade of going down hill and becoming relatively weaker to Russia and the EU as they feel the joys of the depression they will not be able to get out of due to $85 oil.

Our nightmare as Iranians will hopefully not be confronting the USA, as they can't afford to invade Iran for a while.  It will be how to protect ourselves from the EU and Russia once they become strong enough to take care of the USA.  And exactly opposite to what the papers say they are partnering.

The USA is fighting it's last wars before decline and will likely not be able to keep a hold of north Africa and the middle east with out large armies stationed there.  The military expense will be extraordinary for them and if they leave they will be in another bad mess.  Their policy was not wise and it's not smart to just blame carter as all administrations have pursued it.

As they say in Khorasan, "Hala Bekhorine".  I say it was not shahs mistake, he was betrayed by stupid people who didn't even know their own interests.

Mathematically speaking, America was in no position to betray the shah. 

1+1 is not equal to 4, Iran + USA is not USA + UK + France + Germany

They are all direct competitors of the USA for Oil, Iran was not, so based on fundamentals Kissinger was right as USA struggles with EU and Russia. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


The problem is when you are King what you say matters. I may say anything stupid on IC and nobody gives a ***. But when King of Iran speaks people pay attention.


VPK shah was candid personality,

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I love him as a personality for his imperfection/candidness, but that was one of many very bad statements that hurt him personally.

Read this


to learn why rastakhiz at that time was probably in his mind the right thing to do.

I don't know his reasons.  Strange thing is no interviewer ever asked him why a single party, so i don't know.  I heard him once say that we iranians at this point need to straighten out our ranks (ie so that we could have more of our representatives be patriotic) I'm sure he was experiencing that as a major problem to have mentioned straighteing out our ranks.

The Putin approach which is exactly the same as the rastakhiz approach, for the same reason to prioritize people serving russia's interests above all else, except putins has more tact would have been better in hind sight.  He could have not anounced it, but done like the russians & effectively done it.

Years later other generations could then effectively run other parties too.  Just like I expect to see in 20 years in russia, multi parties, though not now.

Unfortunately shahs mistake was being candid with his own people on this subject.  As if saying the truth in politics was a good thing. 

Meanwhile as russians become the 4th wealthiest country in 10 years time they will also start to enjoy more political diversity and debates. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I was there; I live through it in person. From your post it seems like you did not. Therefore I am going to go by my own recollection. Many books were banned including the stupid writings of Khomeini. I wish they were allowed.

In fact that was probably the biggest mistake of Shah. If he allowed people free access to information they would have known. For example how stupid Khomeini and Al Ahmad were. But he had no room for opposing views.

Why did he have to create a one party system. My father a staunch Monarchist was fuming when Shah said "join Rastakhiz or here is your passport: move!". When Shah had his base fuming at him no wonder he got no support or virtually none.


I'm not saying there was no censorship and no repression

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I am just saying it was alot less than you claim,

I just asked an editor friend of mine about tofigh and it seems you are right, it was a most funny and popular circulation paper and it was closed by a democratically elected prime minister Hoveyda, who chosen the same way as mossadegh by the democratically elected parliament.

Some say it was because it made fun of hoveyda a few times in cariacatures, but my friend says it could have had a ligitimate dimension ie after savak found something out.  Look when our democratic leaders are like that and the blame falls on the shah, that is where my problem is. 

The Shah had no lawful power to counter his prime ministers repressive actions, if his actions were done on lawful grounds.

The problem is with Iranian leaders themselves, who acted like dictators, not the shah who gets the blame. In this case yes Hoveyda acted highly repressively.  Sadly.  Personally I am 100% against that type of behavior.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


You are just repeating the same thing; I wish it were true. But it is not I was there and saw it for myself. 

The record "Shabane" by Farhad was banned. What did it have to do with "insulting Shah" or MEK? The poet who wrote "Booyeh Ghandom" Shahriar Ghanbari got a visit from SAVAK. Why should I lie about this? 

You know I am not going to argue about this anymore. Fine: there was no censorship. I am just making it all up. Whatever you say. Human ability for self deception is 100%.


VPK on political freedom

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

It was not as repressive as I think you say.  People did write
what they wanted if they had no links to select groups like mek, radical
mullahs etc, I know many people that opposed various policies and would
say so.

Although i admit they were not free to insult the shah and his
family personally. like we do various political leaders, like bush,
blair etc.

My views on the judicial system may be biased because I
know lawyers and judges that worked in the system and they tell me that
it was independent from politics.

But then again they are good people and uncorruptible so they may think the system was like them, who knows?

with Europe, yes it was not there, compared with the 12 counties that
surrounded us 360 degrees Iran was distinctly free and liberal.  The
country wouldn't have spent so much money of 5 anti corruption agencies
if something good was not happening politically.

It feel Iran needed more time to evolve and develop the people to build democratic institutions.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


You are free to dispute my assertions. But they are historical facts. Just ask any person 50 years or more how often Tofigh got "togif". It was almost a joke "Tofigh togif shode". Many books with no connection to MEK got banned.

I am saying this even though I was on Shah's side. But we need to be honest with ourselves. There was definitely political reppression. Not to mention lots of fear. As well as a one party system.


VPK I dispute your views on political freedom

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

It was not as repressive as I think you portray.  People did write what they wanted if they had no links to select groups like mek, radical mullahs etc, I know many people that opposed various policies and would say so.


Vildemouse what I know from my family

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

that lived abroad as students and protested and came back to iran and protested, they had no issues.  But thankfully they were not hypocrits and they lived with integrity by living in the iri they created

But armed groups that also included killing in their activities like mek and some mullahs that are today in power, their relatives were not harmed but they were chased to the ends of the earthand afraid of coming back to iran.


Amir 1973 Islamists are creatitive in a very negative way

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

They celebrate Neda Agha Sultans death, not as a victim of Tyranny and political repression, but to say they are better than the pahlavi's because she was the victim of a foreign plot!

They kill a young man and then post a picture of him as a basiji, when his views and articles are clearly against the basiji, then they tell the father to shut up if he knows whats best for his other living child.  They use this so called basiji death to remind us, they have greater political freedoms than the pahlavi era ad that they are serving the people, not themselves tyranically.

They kill a volunteer doctor who won't sign off on the torture of people as havng menngitis, because they want to be able to have their cake and eat away at it also.  To say that things may be bad, but this is due to foreigners, at least we are politically freer than the pahlavi's they insist.

They burn many people alive in a cinema and immediately start saying this is the work of the pahlavi's because the pahlavis they claim don't care for the country being tyrants, instead of what is absolutely obvious to all now.

To win against this I think one also has to be creative, but positive/truthful.

For example compare the IRI with other places that were similar,

ie 1) places that had nominal political systems that vetted people

2) places where many many people lived in cruel life threatening poverty that the less politically free environment had created.

3) places where people feared to express them selves for what would happe to their families.

So I would compare them politically to Communism, which had far less political freedom than during the pahlavi era,

And IRI poltical freedom level is even less than existed in the tyrannies of the former soviet union.

Knowing that the pahlavi era was far better politically than communism and IRI is a little worse than communism then it becomes obvious.

Of course the pahlavi administration had greater political freedoms than IRI or commies.



 AO: You're absolutely

by vildemose on

 AO: You're absolutely spot on in your last comment. I also have another question regarding political activism under the Shah. Were the Iranians abroad during the Shah's time afraid of organizing for the fear of retaliations against their family members in Iran  or themselves as we are all under IRI in diaspora? If someone demonstrated against the Shah abroad or was a member of particular party abroad, were they afraid to go back to Iran?

Reform requires the consent of the corrupt


Dear amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

by AMIR1973 on

appreciate that even lying is creativity although negative and harmful

I never quite saw it that way, but I guess it means that Islamists are a mighty "creative" bunch  :-)

Ghorbanet. Regards.

Anonymous Observer

Amirparviz - we all have our biases

by Anonymous Observer on

the trick is to step away from them and look at issues objectively.  Soem of us are capable of doing so, and some are not, unfortunately.