Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Q&A With Iranians Inside & Outside Ian


Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Q&A With Iranians Inside & Outside Ian
by Darius Kadivar

Questions & Answers With Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi at Beylux Chat Room With Iranians Inside & Outside of Iran. Broadcast By //

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

Part V:

Part VI:

Part VII:

Part VIII:

Recommended Readings/watching:

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... By Darius KADIVAR

RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ... by DK

IRANIAN SOLIDARNOSC: Defecting Revolutionary Guard's confession and support to Reza Pahlavi By DK


more from Darius Kadivar

Dear VPK

by jamshid on

I agree with you.

"Therefore they want to put a lipstick on the pig of Islamism and shove it down our throats."

Well said!

My main issues with reformists are:

1. They were (and still are) the prime enablers of the mollah regime. Their role is very similar to the role of the likes of Salman Farsi who taught the otherwise unknowledgable Arab invaders how to maintain control of Iran.

2. They speak from both sides of their mouth. On one hand they have pretenses of modernity and democracy, and on the other hand they support many backwarded and undemocratic views. Unlike mollahs, they don't come out clean and always, always, always rely on lies, deceptions and half truths to further their agenda.

3. With the exception of a very few individuals, they never ever admit to their own mistakes, while at the same time, they grill others for any mistakes they might have made. A clear example is the case for Mousavi. Just ask yourself this question:

"If the 1988 massacre had taken place during the Shah's reign and if Hoveyda was the PM at the time, would Mammad and others like him be as tolerant towards Hoveyda and turn stones to justify his innocense? Or would they have executed him on spot, if they could get their hands on him?"

I'd like Mammad to answer the above question, but I doubt he would.



by benross on

If you dig deeper, you'll notice that monarchy bashing is not just a residual hatred, or even an islamist agenda for that matter.

RP project is the project of modernity, which starts with respecting the history of struggle for modernity in Iran, rule of law, the constitutional law which derives from that struggle to begin with, and reforming and improving it based on modern values, via modern tools (referendum, constituent assembly...) those who defy this simple and clear process, are not defying the monarchy. They are in fact, defying the modernity. Not recognizing that change of constitution in Iran was anti-democratic and anti-modernist to begin with, is an anti-modernity belief in itself. Any attempt of 'reforming' IRI within, which is founded by anti-modernity values, is either justified by anti-modernity values, or the collective guilt about allowing anti-modernity values to take power to begin with.

So RP project is facing resentments, not only amongst Islamist, but almost any part of political spectrum, and where there is a resentment, you can easily see its foundation in anti-modernity beliefs.

Conversely, as we witnessed in this blog, the unlikely political affiliations can show a favorable sign toward this project, because modern values and consideration overshadow the traditional -and obsolete- definitions of political spectrum. Particularly amongst the new generation.

The beauty of a political agenda such as referendum is that it doesn't antagonize the anti-modernity forces. It simply redirect them to formulate their ideas with respect of gaining legitimacy via a referendum. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Jamshid Jan: Why does Mammad

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


want the reformists?

Because Mammad is an Islamist intellectual. The Islamists at least the smarter ones know that IRI is going. They are afraid Monarchy or Nationalist government is end of IRI. They want to preserve Islam as the main force in Iranian politics. Therefore they want to put a lipstick on the pig of Islamism and shove it down our throats. Now their best be is reformists. Does this make sense to you Jamshid jan?

I don't trust any Islamist. From the specially the double talking intellectuals. Their true aligence is not to Iran. It is to their religion and mumbo jumbo.



Mammad, #2

by jamshid on

"Mousavi was a true believer in Ayatollah Khomeini. I am not defending that, as I disagree with it completely. But, he has also changed dramatically. Just review his speeches over the last year."

Why then don't you believe that others, such as Monarchists, have also changed drastically? Why making mistakes, then changing and reforming oneslef is only the privilege of the reformsits? 

Also why then do you insist on RP to denounce his father? At least it could be said that RP was not part of any dictatorship. Can we say the same about Mousavi? Why shouldn't Mousavi denounce Khomeini, at least symbollically, by removing the picture of Khomein from his desk when he is interviewed?

Which is worst?

1. RP who has denounced the wrongs done by his father at least to some good extend if not to the level that you want, or,

2. Mousavi who not only does not renounce Khomeini, he doesn't even do so symbollically by removing khomeini's face from his desk or website.

Which is worst? This is a question that I hope you will answer and not skip.

Lastly, I find it extremely immoral to defend Mousavi on the issue of the massacre. It is just unexcusable. Islamists, reformists version included have grilled and toasted many others for lesser crimes while holding lesser positions. Why is it that when it comes to Mousavi, he is treated differently?

In my opinion, your opinions are selective, biased and unfair. Your being "extremely knowledgeable" does not change this.



by jamshid on

Mammad, you wrote, 

"why is it that he/she has been advocating an oldie like Reza Pahlavi of 50 years old, the remnant of an old dictatortship that gave Iran the clerical leadership of a grand revolution, after killing the press and eliminating all the secular democratic forces, and brought us to the present situation through its (mind you!) SECULAR dictatorship?"

I would like to ask you a similiar question:

"why is it that you have been advocating an oldie like Mousaviof 60+ years old, the remnant of an old IRI dictatortship that gave Iran the Ahmadinejad/Sepah leadership of a grand revolution, after killing the press and eliminating all the forms of opposition, and brought us to the present situation through its (mind you!) Islamic Republic dictatorship?"

Why are you criticizing the Pahlavists, but not the reformists? Could you elaborate on this?

You wrote on principles of unification against the IRI:

"The first of such principle, in my opinion, is acknowledgment of wrong doings in the past by those whom you want to unite us with - the Pahlavis."

I'd like to add a second principle to the above. It is this:

The second  of such principle, in my opinion, is acknowledgment of wrong doings in the past by those whom you want to unite us with - the Reformists.

And so where would this principle leave us with those reformists who don't aknowledge their past wrong doings by virture of serving the most brutal dictatorship in our modern history?

You seem to forget that various colors of reformists played the same role than Salman Farsi played when he taught, advised and helped the otherwise unknowledgable Arab conquerors how to solidify their grasp on Iran.

On the executions, in the defense of Mousavi, you wrote,

"The letter by Ayatollah Khomeini talks about Mousavi resigning because of lack of agreement over some Ministers. However, it was known that there was no such disagreement at that time..." [how does this prove that he was resigning over the issue of executions? It does not!]

Note how Mousavi's original letter of resignation was not publicized, and how Mousavi, in his response to Ayatollah Khomeini, says that he will "discuss the issues that are in the interest of the nation" in PERSON"... [again, how does this prove that he was resigning over the issue of executions? It does not!]

The "disagreement" over Ministers was simply a smokescreen for the ultra-sensitive subject of the executions... [how do you know this? Where are your references?]

These are all only your speculations. Unfortunately, after making me read all your comments on this issue, you have not provided one shred of solid evidence yet. And the link you provided does not work either.

But allow me to provide you with something that is more than speculations: Mousavi's own attitude toward Khomeini who ordered the massacre. By having khomeinei's picture in his interview, he negated all hopes you/we had regarding his subsequent (lack of) actions in 1988 regarding the massacre.

And he also negated much more hopes.

You wrote,

"the core issue that some doubted in this thread was whether Mousavi actually wanted to resign in September 1988"

No. This was not the core issue. You are either intentionally or unintentionally falsifying what the core issue was. The core issue was NOT whether Mousavi "acutally wanted to resign in Sep 1988". The core issue was "whether he knew about the massacres as early as in August and whether he took any actions after finding out about the massacre in August".

Lastly, do you agree that in a future free Iran, Mousavi should be tried in a fair court regarding the massacre?


Darius Kadivar


by Darius Kadivar on

Up Yours Brother ...


Oh and do Send My Regards to Capt_Ayhab if you bump into him ...




by BehroozAzarin on

If my first impression of you by any slim chance was not correct, then you must be a well paid malijak trying to continue the family tradition. Pahlavi dictators were forced to Iranians by British and America. So is this Reza. So, what happened to people's will/vote and wealth?  How do you find this to be democratic?



bingo, dk

by humanbeing on

you found one of the nietzsche citations in fish/wanda. sorry i'm off topic.

Darius Kadivar

BehroozAzarin and I think You are God's Second Blunder ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Care for some Fish Ken ? ;0)




by humanbeing on

could it be that you are envious of dk's unstinting love for his country, which he displays with such openness and devotion?

i'm sure you also have personal feelings, let's hear some of them.


Snacking on sange-payeh Ghazvin

by Fred on

When an Islamist gets to have an undeservedly comfy life in the “Great Satan” which he does not miss a beat to bash courtesy of NIOC paid for chair, that sack of a liar Islamist feels entitled to openly defend his Islamist Rapist brethrens who have been tormenting Iranian people for thirty one years.

And when anyone objects to this wholly disgustingly Islamist behavior, the NIOC financed Islamist demands irrefutable, documented evidence that his newest Islamist idol has had a hand in abusing Iranian nation.

Listen up; in any sane part of the world being a PM while mass murders were committed by your government on your watch is an indictable criminal offense, that is why there is ICC. It is more so when that PM openly idolizes the Islamist “Imam” whose written kill order is available.

It is further the case when that Islamist PM, his Islamist wifey along with the "reformist" Islamist Prez and the Speaker of the "majles" say they want to take Iran back to how it was during their “Imam” times. Charlatan Ali Shariati devotees are funny that way.

For snack, Islamists munch on sange-payeh Ghazvin. Khodeti Haji nuke.

What about your Islamist buddy Jeff in charlatan Khatami office?


MM, what more do you need?

by Kaveh Parsa on

Mammad has given you "plausible" "indisputable facts" based on "recollections"  "verified" by farsi wikipiedia (aka homework or sources) which "suggests" "interpretations" without "100% certainty".



by Mammad on

I repeat what I have said several times in this debate:

1. If Mousavi had a role in the executions, so be it. If he is, then he is and people like me will stop supporting him, period. 

The point of all of my arguments is that, based on what I know about the power structure in Iran, and other sources (including, for example, memoirs of Ayatollah Montazeri) he had no role in the executions. I am not claiming that he is most definitely innocent, but that there is no evidence for it. Insinuation and innuendoes, like those of the AIPAC Mafioso and the other bozo (see below) won't do.

2. As I pointed out in the last comment where I gave the link, Mousavi's letter of resignation was never publicized (unlike his previous ones), and when he changed his mind, in his letter to Ayatollah Khomeini he obliquely refers to "the issues that are of national importance and interest" that he will tell him PERSONALLY (not in writing). I interpret this as indicating that the subject was too sensitive to be revealed in writing. If so, what was it? Keep in mind the timing which was either right after the end of the execitions, or just about. Mousavi has said he became aware of them after they had ended. You can have your own interpretation and that is fine with me.

But, when I first brought the subject up, many, including yourself, questioned whether Mousavi wanted to resign in September 1988 at all. I never said that I am 100% certain that he wanted to resign over that issue, but that all evidence suggests that it is a distinct possibility and it is completely plausible that that was the issue.

3. Mousavi was (and still is, although only zabaani) a true believer in Ayatollah Khomeini. I am not defending that, as I disagree with it completely. But, he has also changed dramatically. Just review his speeches over the last year. 

I have no problem with you or anyone else insisting on references. However, I also have a long track record of writing in what I consider to be an honest manner. Those who have read my extensive writings can tell you that.

I am not interested in converting people to my views (as someone claimed in this thread that I want to do). I do not care what people believe in, as everyone is free and entitled to his/her opinion. What I am interested in is younger people who do not know much about the past 50 years learn the accurate history, and form their opinion based on that knowledge. People like the AIPAC Mafioso brazenly lie about everything, and arrogantly do not respond to anything. That must be countered. Because I counter it, they cannot take it!!



No Fear: Can you define

by vildemose on

No Fear: Can you define Enghelabi raAat?

 مهار خواسته‌ها و مطالباتِ خود را به دست آن «انقلابیون و انقلابی‌مآبان»ی بدهیم که خود آن زخم‌ها را بر تن و روح‌مان وارد کردند [از جمله آن «مراجع مذهبی ـ اخلاقی» که رقیب و رئیس‌جمهور کشورشان را «حرامزاده» می‌خوانند! حاشا و کلا که حتا برای لحظه‌ای، اخلاق خود را از آنان بگیریم!].

Khasteh va Motalebate shoma cheest??

What kind of injuries on you body and soul as an  Enghalbi raAst did you suffer?

انقلابی‌گری راست، فرجامی جز «سازش و مصالحه با رقیب» ندارد. پس،

Elimination and annihilation of your opposition is your version of "compromise and cooperation"??


No Fear

Comrade جان

No Fear

در واکنش به مطلب قبل؛


 ازم پرسیده است: «مگر از حیث انقلابی‌گری، چه فرقی‌ست میان موسوی و احمدی‌نژاد؟!». پرسش خوبی‌ که به من فرصت می دهد تا به مطالب دیگری هم در این زمینه اشاره کنم.

تردیدی نیست که «هم موسوی و هم احمدی‌نژاد» در درون یک محیط انقلابی، و در درونِ یک ساخت سیاسی و مناسباتَ مختص به آن، پرورش یافته‌اند. اما نگاهی به دیدگاه‌ها و عملکردِ هریک از این دو نشان می‌دهد که «انقلابی‌گری موسوی» مبتنی بر «دیدگاه‌های چپ» اما «انقلابی‌گری احمدی‌نژاد» مبتنی بر یک «دیدگاه راست» بوده است. و این نیز به تجربه پیداست که انقلابی‌گری چپ، کارش، هرگز به «مصالحه و سازش با رقیب» نمی‌انجامد بلکه همواره به «قهر و خشونت» گرائیده است. اما بازهم تجربه نشان داده است که انقلابی‌گری راست، فرجامی جز «سازش و مصالحه با رقیب» ندارد. پس، در دستگاه تحلیلی من (که خود را یک «راستِ مدرن» می‌دانم)؛ «انقلابی راست» واجد خطر کمتری‌ست تا «انقلابی چپ» (نه اینکه کلاً خطر نیست، بلکه خطر به‌مراتب ضعیف‌تری‌ست).

اما این هم پاسخ اصلی من به پرسش این خواننده نیست. بلکه پاسخ من به پرسش او این است که:
احمدی‌نژاد «رهبر من» برای «پیگیری مطالبات دموکراتیک و برابری‌خواهانه‌ی من» نیست. هرگز هم نمی‌تواند باشد. چراکه نه او و نه هیچ «انسان انقلابی» دیگری، دیگربار و پس از تجربه‌ی سه‌دهه‌ی گذشته؛ نمی‌تواند رهبری مرا برعهده داشته باشد تا مرا به‌سوی حقوق و آزادی‌هایی که خود را شایسته‌ی آن می‌بینم رهنمون شود.

بلکه او برای من؛ فقط و فقط، به مثابه «یکی از چند گزینه‌ی موجود و ممکن برای انتخاب در حین مکانیزم اعلام‌نظر» (انتخابات) عمل می‌کند. یعنی تنها تا همین‌اندازه موردِ حمایت من به عنوان یک شهروند واقع می‌شود که مانع به‌قدرت رسیدن مجددِ «انسان انقلابی چپ» شود.
و در ادامه؛ تا آنجاکه همه‌ یا بخش بزرگی از بنیان‌هایی را که «انسان انقلابی چپ» بنا کرده و (در دستگاه تحلیلی من به عنوان یک لیبرال دموکرات موانع عمده‌ی تحقق آزادی‌ ارزیابی می‌شوند) کنار بگذارد یا مضمحل کند. چنان‌که تاکنون کرده است و خواسته یا ناخواسته، ناشی از جبر و اکراه زمانه یا هر دلیل و انگیزه‌‌ی‌ دیگری؛ بسیاری از «تابوهای» بنانهاده‌شده توسط «انسان انقلابی چپ» و «اشراف‌سالاری روحانیون و روحانی‌زادگان» را (که از دیدِ من «مقصر و مسئول اصلی وضع وخیم موجود» است) با جسارت و بی‌پروایی کم‌نظیری شکسته و از سر راهِ خودش (و البته که «همه‌ی ما») برداشته است.

همچنان‌که پیشتر هم بارها نوشته‌ام:
او ، چه بخواهد چه نخواهد، چه بداند چه نداند؛ «اسب تروآی مردمان ستمدیده در دل اشراف‌سالاری»ست و عملکردِ تاریخی او «سست کردنِ پیوندها و مضمحل کردنِ همه‌ یا اغلب آن مناسبات ظالمانه‌ای‌‌ست که اگر بنا باشد که ما مضمحل‌کننده‌ی آن باشیم؛ ناچار از پرداختن هزینه‌های سنگین و گزافی خواهیم بود که تا او هست، هیچ لزومی به پرداخت آن از سوی مردمان نیست».

حقیقتاً چه کسی جز او (که از حمایت و پشتیبانی «نهادهای واقعی قدرت» برخودار است, قابل توجه Vildemose ) می‌توانست تابوهای سخت و سنگینی چون «گفتگوی مستقیم با ایالات‌متحده»، «برگماری وزیر زن»، «کنارگذاردن روحانیون و مراجع مذهبی از حوزه‌ی نفوذ بر تصمیماتِ اجرایی کشور»، «حذف یارانه‌ها» و بسیار مانند آن را بشکند و زیرپا بگذارد؟!

درعین حال و با آنکه او را باهوش‌ترین و زیرک‌ترین دولتمردی می‌دانم که «جمهوری اسلامی» تاکنون به خود دیده است؛ اما به‌روشنی، او «رهبر فکری من نیست». تا به اقتضای آن؛ مهار دستگاه اندیشه‌گی من (و احتمالاً میلیون‌ها رای‌دهنده‌ی دیگر از نوع من) را در اختیار داشته باشد و بتواند تعیین‌کننده‌ی این موضوع باشد که من و کسانی چون من «چگونه بیندیشیم، چگونه فکر کنیم، برچه مبنایی تصمیم بگیریم و عمل کنیم، رو به چه جانبی حرکت کنیم، یا کی بایستیم و کی حرکت کنیم!».
بلکه او، همچون هر رئیس‌جمهور و کارگزار دیگری در هر ساخت حکومتی؛ وسیله و ابزاری‌ست که «ما» (رای‌دهندگانش) را از یک موقعیت به موقعیتِ دیگر می‌رساند و بس.

اما درحالی که «احمدی‌نژاد رهبر فکری و عملی من نیست بلکه تنها یک کاندیدای مناسب‌تر از دیگران است»؛ گویا میرحسین موسوی، مهدی کروبی و محمدخاتمی «رهبران جنبش آزادی‌‌خواهی و برابری‌طلبی شما» هستند. تا آنجاکه به‌رغم گذشت چندماه از انتخابات، هنوز عکس‌های ‌ایشان را در دست می‌گیرید و هنوز برای‌شان «یاحسین» می‌گوئید (که ناگفته؛ این‌هم روشن است که حسب سلیقه و مصالح خود، مجاز و مختارید که چنین کنید).

اما اگر بخواهم از دیدِ انتقادی به رفتار شما نگاه کنم؛ ناچارم به‌عنوان کسی که چه‌بسا کمی بیش از شما صاحب تجربه باشد، یادآور شوم که:

نکته‌ای که می‌بایست «یک هواخواه جدی و اصولگرای آزادی‌‌خواهی و برابری‌طلبی» همواره به‌یاد داشته باشد این است که:
«جنبش‌های سیاسی‌اجتماعی، خواه‌ناخواه؛ شکل رهبران‌شان می‌شوند». چراکه آنها هستند که ماهیتِ جنبش تحتِ رهبری خود را با رفتارها، عملکردها، مواضع و به‌ویژه «کلمات»ی که برزبان می‌آورند (یا «نمادها و الگوها»یی که پیشنهاد می‌کنند، یا «ابزارهایی» که به دست هواداران خود می‌دهند) می‌سازند و تربیت می‌کنند.

پس مطمئن باشید که تاهر زمان که پشت سر رهبران، یا شعارهایی که تناسبی با محتوای پیشنهادی جنبش‌تان، یا مطالباتِ دموکراتیک‌‌تان ندارد متوقف بمانید؛ شماهم نخواهید توانست آینده‌ی بهتری برای خود و فرزندان‌تان رقم بزنید. همچنان‌که پدرانِ از شما زرنگ‌تر‌تان نتوانستند!

و این؛ حتا به‌فرض آن است که تحرکِ اعتراضی شما بتواند فراگیر شود. چون اصلی‌ترین عاملی که مانع فراگیری جنبش شماست همین است. همین‌که: «درجایی و در وضعیتی متوقف مانده‌اید که سه‌چهارماه پیش باید ازش می‌گذشتید» [امیدوارم روشن باشد که مقصودم از «گذشتن»؛ هرگز «رادیکال‌تر شدن» نیست. بلکه «خارج‌شدن از حوزه‌ی نفوذ و رهبری انسانِ انقلابی»ست که رادیکال‌شدنِ لحظه‌به‌لحظه‌ی شما و به انحراف کشیده‌شدنِ تحرکِ شما را اجتناب‌ناپذیر می‌کند].

 واقعیت (از دید من) این است که مثلاً:
ـ محتوای پیشنهادیِ تحرکِ اعتراضی شما «جامعه‌ای سکولار» است اما شعارتان «یا حسین» (دینی / انقلابی)ست!
ـ محتوای پیشنهای تحرکِ اعتراضی شما «آشتی‌جویی و آشتی‌پذیری»ست اما شعارتان «دانشجو می‌میرد، ذلت نمی‌پذیرد» (غیر صلح‌جویانه/ شهادت‌طلبانه) است!
ـ محتوای پیشنهادیِ تحرکِ اعتراضی شما «احترام‌طلبی»ست اما شعارتان «دروغگو،‌ دروغگو...» (توهین‌آمیز) است!
ـ محتوای پیشنهادیِ تحرکِ اعتراضی شما «برابری‌طلبی و دیگرپذیری»ست اما شعارتان «هرکی جواده، طرفدار احمدی‌نژاده» (خودبرتربینانه/ نامهربانانه) است!

و .... بسیار موارد دیگر. که بیشترشان؛ نشاندهنده‌ی این عارضه است که جنبش شما، به‌نحوی ناگزیر و بدیهی؛ «شبیه رهبرانِ انقلابی»اش شده و همن خصلت‌ةای آنان را اخذ کرده است.
همان «انسان‌های انقلابی» که من و نسل من، خوب آنها را می‌شناسیم و از رفتارها و عملکردشان، زخم‌های بسیار بر تن و روح‌مان نشسته و باقی‌ست. زخم‌های ناسوری که نمی‌گذارند و به خیلی از ما اجازه نمی‌دهند که یکبار دیگر، با بی‌احتیاطی تمام؛ مهار خواسته‌ها و مطالباتِ خود را به دست آن «انقلابیون و انقلابی‌مآبان»ی بدهیم که خود آن زخم‌ها را بر تن و روح‌مان وارد کردند [از جمله آن «مراجع مذهبی ـ اخلاقی» که رقیب و رئیس‌جمهور کشورشان را «حرامزاده» می‌خوانند! حاشا و کلا که حتا برای لحظه‌ای، اخلاق خود را از آنان بگیریم!].


Mammad - about your reference

by MM on


I hope that you understand my insistence in being accurate. 

I understand why folks would infer/deduce the respose below as a sign of Mousavi's disgust.  However, in the website you quoted, there is no mention of resignation due to the massacres, and now we both agree that the information is inferred. 

Secondly, it is disturbing the way Mousavi kissed up to Khomeini (see below response to Khomeini) and Mousavi has said that he is still Khomeini's MORID, even today.  So, I am puzzled about what we should believe about Mousavi; The fact that he will continue in Khomeini's footsteps or that he would cut the hands of religious nuts out of politics.

Thank you.



)- آقای میرحسین موسوی که یکی از کارگزاران امین و مورد علاقه و حمایت امام خمینی در طول دوران تصدی پست نخست وزیری در حساسترین و دشوارترین مراحل تاریخ بعد از پیروزی انقلاب اسلامی بود، پس از دریافت نظر امام خمینی طی نامه‏ای استعفای خویش را پس گرفت. متن نامه ایشان بدین قرار است:

«بسم اللَّه الرحمن الرحیم.

محضر مبارک مقام رهبری، حضرت امام خمینی- مدظله العالی-

ضمن تقدیم سلام و تحیات، پیام پدرانه و هشدار دهنده حضرتعالی را به گوش جان شنیدم. اینجانب عزت و مصلحت را در تبعیت از مقام معظم رهبری می‏دانم و استعفای خود را که با انگیزه دلسوزی برای اسلام و انقلاب و مصلحت کشور تقدیم نموده بودم، پس می‏گیرم. مسائل و مواردی که چاره جویی آنها را به مصلحت کشور می‏دانم، حضوراً عرض می‏کنم و در هر حال مطیع امر رهبری به عنوان یک مرید و مقلد بوده و هستم.

میرحسین موسوی، نخست وزیر».


is this blog about Rapture?

by Darveesh on

Sorry but I only could catch the first few pages.



Unmitigated veghaahat

by Fred on

You’ve got to hand it to them Islamists, when it comes to  unmitigated veghaahat they are second to none.

Their Islamist PM bears no responsibility for massacres done under his watch. Their President bears no responsibility for crimes done under his watch.

And the Islamist nuke lobbyist wants such irresponsible entity where its PM or President is as good as a potted plant to have nuke? Khodeti haji!

BTW what about that Jeff boy working in charlatan Khatami office?

Cheyenne in Once Upon a Time

Oh boy, with all the credible evidence I am now convinced

by Cheyenne in Once Upon a Time on

that Mousavi was/is indeed a genuine pro-democracy and anti-Islamic Republic establishment!
Now, I am going to jump on the band wagon of the Green guys. Let's see, after Ahmad Gooreel leaves the office in 3 years, Mousvi will take over and for 8 more (11 in total) years we will be slugged in the rear end and as in the movie the Animal House we will say, "Thank you Sir! May we have another one please!"
In 11 years, another bacheh akhoond will emerge as the new face of the reform in Islamic Republic and we will jump on that band wagon (I wonder what the color of the movement will be, Yellow maybe!)
This saga shall continue.... until the great 12th one re-appears!
I say let's get rid the Islamic Republic in its entirety by any means available!


Here is the link to the subject of resignation

by Mammad on

Here, it took 30 seconds to find the link to the subject of resignation by Mousavi in Shahrivar 1367 (September 1988), and Ayatollah Khomeini's opposition and rejection of the resignation.


The letter by Ayatollah Khomeini talks about Mousavi resigning because of lack of agreement over some Ministers. However, it was known that there was no such disagreement at that time, because the 3rd Majles that had been elected that year was controlled by the leftists, and there was no talk of making changes in the cabinet. I had already mentioned these in my previous comments.

Note how Mousavi's original letter of resignation was not publicized, and how Mousavi, in his response to Ayatollah Khomeini, says that he will "discuss the issues that are in the interest of the nation" in PERSON (why not in writing?). His previous letters to the Ayatollah (that you can again find easily) about the subject of disagreements over such issues as selection of the Ministers (due to the confrontation between him and Ayatollah Khamenei) were always publicized, either by him, or by his allies. And, this was not the first time that he wanted to resign.

I never claimed that I am certain that he wanted to resign over the issue of the executions (read my previous comments), but that I believe it is totally plausible (the article in the TB site used these exact words, as I used them here) that he wanted to do so over the executions. The "disagreement" over Ministers was simply a smokescreen (we all know that the IRI has used it so many times) for the ultra-sensitive subject of the executions (particularly at that time) that not only then, but also now, is a taboo subject in Iran among those who have worked in the system (not common people).

People like me, in addition to KNOWING THE HISTORY, do their HW to make sure that their recollection is correct, BEFORE writing an article. I have given you my interpretation of the events, based on my knowledge (not slogans) and indisputable facts.

Ever since I made my first comment about the subject, the core issue that some doubted in this thread was whether Mousavi actually wanted to resign in September 1988; he did. If some want to still disbelieve it, be my guest.

I believe that Mousavi does bear some moral responsibility regarding the executions (the article in the TB said the same), simply because he was a high-ranking official. But, that is vastly different from the outlandish baseless claims here that "the executions were done under his watch," or that, "he supported them," or that, "the Ministry of Intelligence that HE CONTROLLED was resposible," etc., etc., etc.  


Darius Kadivar

Oh then You Mean Total Surrender To YOUR Republican Demands

by Darius Kadivar on

Sorry to Dissapoint You 




Not Even After All this Time ... 

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





DK aziz; I did not say

by vildemose on

DK aziz; I did not say 'apologize.' I said 'defend his father's legacy' and  Pahlavi's dynasty. I leave it at that for now.


MM jan: I totally hear you

by vildemose on

MM jan: I totally hear you and I wish there was a direct of way of verifying info about IRI but as you know, we don't have that kind of luxury given the nontransparent nature of IRI.

However,   I categorically trust Mammad's integrity and honesty. He has no intention of misleading anyone. I've come to respect his humanity a great deal and I'm sure if you asked him nicely he would be more than happy to enage you.


 As for me, as I said before, I will reserve my final judgment on Mousavi when he can express himself freely. Just today, some moron called for his arrest... Watch this astoundingly beautiful and moving video. Everyone should this video and learn from it. //


MM jan: I totally hear you

by vildemose on

deleted. double post.

Darius Kadivar

Wait a Minute Vildemose and Mammad Jaan's Do YOUR Homework First

by Darius Kadivar on

NOTE: Before I continue below I would like to say I am using the Word "YOU" as a "generic" form for all those who directly or indirectly supported the revolution and not your individual personas or specific personalities vildemose Jaan or Mammad Jaan ... ( in otherwords I am not aiming at character assassinating anyone -Nor Physical Assassinating them either ;0) ... even when I disagree with them entirely)  

So To begin With YOU have clearly Not Read RP's Book when you claim he has not acknowledged his father's mistakes or responsabilities.

Second Why should he Apologize TWICE given the Fact that his Own Father already Apologized to a disastrous Effect in his last Public Speach where he acknowledged the Voice of the Revolution ...

He did not Abdicate However but passed on the reigns of Power to the Nationalist Government of Shapour Bakhtiar ( a supporter of Dr. Mossadegh and one who had both opposed the Shah and been improsoned by him).

Shapour Bakhtiar's Last Public Speach speaks about Regime Change and the Restoration of the 1906 Constitution:

RP is simply Taking the mantle Where Bakhtiar Left it and died for and you are blaming him to do his duty ? ...

Reza Pahlavi's message on the Anniversary of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran:


Shapour Bakhtiar Publically Stood By the CRown PRince because he was First and Foremost a Constitutionalist. He worked hand in hand throughout the 1980's and even went to Cairo to Pay his respects to the Shah's Tomb back in the 1980's a few days after the Funeral and shortly before the First failed Assassination attempt against his life in the Paris suburbs.

Your Revolutionary Justice was Well Served with the Execution of Iran's Top Brass Generals, Head of SAVAK and Many Ministers without the Slightest Fair Trial :

Islamic Republic Propaganda Footage: SAVAK HQ seized by civilians & execution of Iranian Generals: Rahimi, Nassiri, Khosrowdaud...., Feb 1979 :


Rahimi Trial in presence of future Reformist Ebrahim Yazdi:


General Mohaghegi Executed along with Sadegh Gobtzadeh ( Nojeh Coup):



So Why should the Crown Prince Even make the slightest excuse today to satisfy YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY ?


When YOU Demand Excuses from RP for his Father's so called Mistakes... OThers will equally and in their own Right Demand him NOT too and For Good Reason :

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

PARIS GATHERING: Shapour Bakhtiar and Soroush Katibeh memory honored in Paris (FRANCE)

I would like to know what Shirin Ebadi has to say regarding the Cold Blooded Murder Of Dr. Bakhtiar whom two of the Assassins Still Live in IRan in total Freedom ?

Same thing for Moussavi when he continues to give speaches with the Photo of Khomeiny behind him ? ...

Or of the fact that Anice Nachache the Lebanese Terrorist who failed to Kill Bakhtiar (but killed an innocent French passerby lady and a French Policeman) is Today a Free man and respectable businessman who travels to IRan regularly as strategic advisor to Iran's government ( probably as a middle man for the HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH Interests).

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: First Assassination Attempt on Shapour Bakhtiar (1980)

Accountability is a Give and Take PRocess ...

Not only do you kill us off like flies BUT You demand Excuses too ?  

From this point of view Monarchists have been Far more Accountable than the IRI has been in the past 30 years and as such I find it Extremely distasteful when I read Mr Sahimi associate the Monarchists to Terrorists as he did back in 2001.

Dream on:Monarchists and international terrorism by Mohammad Sahimi (November 2, 2001)

Well we now See how the IRI has treated these so called "Terrorists" to this day ...

Muhamad Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanpour must have appreciated Your Article's Assessment to the Fullest Mr. Sahimi !


No need to mention the others over the years ...

PROUD TO BE IRANIAN AND A MONARCHIST: Fereydoun Farrokhzad Up Close and Personal (Mid 1980's)

JAVIDAN: Shah's Imperial Guard dies during an attack by Khomeini guerillas (1979)

JAVIDAN: Farokhroo Pārsā (1922-1980) 

JAVIDAN: Fereydoon Farrokhzad (1935-1992)

JAVIDAN: Generals Ayat Mohagheghi and Mehdi Rahimi

And Yet After All this YOU Refuse the Olive Branch Our Crown Prince Extends to YOU ?

Porooyee Ham Kootahy Dareh !




Vildemose: op-ed, based on personal/rumers vs. fact statement

by MM on


It is all about accuracy in reporting. 

If someone puts in an op-ed, based on personal experience/rumers, then fine.  But the reporter cannot claim it as a statement of facts.  For example, regarding the reports of resignation of Mousavi in 1988, there were rumers that he tried to resign, See below reference by Mammad, e.g., but it is a big jump to claim it as a fact especially when Mousavi himself has been silent about it.  Mousavi may be silent because of the political atmosphere in Iran, but so be it.  If the writer makes that distinction between personal experience/rumers vs. statement of facts, I enjoy reading a good op-ed as well.

"It is widely believed that Mousavi wished to resign several times ...."


But, these reports were never confirmed, Mousavi himself has not said anything about the massacres and his own role as the 3rd ranking officer in IRI at the time, and when the students in 2009 asked Mousavi about his role, this is what happened:

Iran : Students grill Moussavi about the 1988 massacre of political prisoners


Wednesday, 06 May 2009

"On Monday, one of the students asked Moussavi about kangaroo trials that issued judgments in the span of a few minutes and led to the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988. The student added: At the time, you were the prime minister. You were the third most powerful person in the country. What do you have to say now about your silence back then when all this was taking place? Was your silence a sign of endorsement? We want to stress again that you should explicitly respond to this question.  However, Moussavi refused to address the question directly, and as he was leaving the arena, students chanted, “Mirhossein, give us an answer about 1988.” Students also shouted slogans against other regime officials, in addition to Moussavi."




Okay. Whatever you say

by benross on

Okay. Whatever you say vildemose. But whenever you get a chance to get out of your comfort zone, pay attention to the subject matter of this blog.


Dear benross: I never said

by vildemose on

Dear benross: I never said it was about ME. Don't you think there are many in Iran who think like me, including my own young nieces and nephews who actually live in Iran. You'll be surprised how many of the youngs generation are on the fence and think exactly like I do.


Again vildemose, the subject

by benross on

Again vildemose, the subject matter is not YOU. It's the young activists. RP is not looking at YOU, to persuade you of anything. He is looking at the young generation. I suggest you do the same. The persuasion will come naturally.

A reminder- RP and I are not coming from the same place AT ALL. It's the common sense of our history that brings us together. 


Dear Mammad: I do wish you

by vildemose on

Dear Mammad: I do wish you changed your mind about writing blogs on IC. You are a treasure trove of knowledge about the history and inner workings of past and present governments in Iran and I wish people will just set aside their petty differences and listen and learn.