Reza Pahlavi: "Ne bombardez pas mon pays"
Journal du Dimanche / Claude ASKOLOVITCH
26-May-2009 (18 comments)

Reza Pahlavi, fils du dernier shah d'Iran, adjure Israël et l'Occident de ne pas faire la guerre. Et espère une révolte populaire contre les mollahs. Face au régime, il brandit les valeurs démocratiques occidentales, au nom d'une si vieille idée de la Perse. Au moment où commence la campagne présidentielle iranienne, le roi sans terre parle au JDD.

recommended by Darius Kadivar


Darius Kadivar

Ya ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Up Yours From a Real Shirazy:


Oh Ya

by shirazie (not verified) on

he does not carry any weight ... is that why he is on Fox news all the time?

nice try you turkeys who support and Kiss their asses ... get over it.. IRI will fall without you people.

Pahlavis are dust in the wind

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

You know, I wish I did have the answer as far as how to properly apply these sanctions, in such a way that minimizes the negative impact on the people while squeezing those worthless nuts on the worthless IRI. Somewhere, somehow, there's a way. I just don't have the formula.

But I'm not talking about foreign military interference. I'm talking about a non-military isolation that will render the IR impotent, making it impossible for them to survive, and making it more of a "fair fight" internally for the masses to take out the garbage once and for all. Antarinejad needs to be shown who are his equals. And they do not walk on two legs.

Where we differ here is who we think "the snake" is. I'm not suggesting the U.S. is completely innocent, and has done nothing wrong. Nor am I suggesting that each and every one of their motives are totally above board. But before the U.S. got involved, Iraq and Afghanistan were well on their way to devastation. Whether the U.S. sped up or slowed down that process, that's up for debate, I suppose.

Darius Kadivar

khaleh mosheh Here is a Dedicated copy especially for you

by Darius Kadivar on

Where the mouse usually resides ...

And Your Palestinian Sisterhood and Brotherhood



khaleh mosheh

RP's Book-'The Winds Of Change'.

by khaleh mosheh on

Nice one your royal highness. 

Darius Kadivar

The Words he used at the time were clumsy& innapropriate BUT ...

by Darius Kadivar on

I don't think that his words were subtle but I don't believe that what he was suggesting by "Eye of the Octopus" being in Tehran was Go and BombIran ... Or even Tehran for that matter Since while he expressed those badly chosen words he also IMMEDIATELY added  that in the short aftermath of 9/11 Iranians demonstrated in large In Tehran by holding Candle Vigils for the victims ! Proving that there was a civil society in Iran which was at Odds with the Official Anti American Stance that the Islamic Government in Tehran has been preaching for 21 years ( at the Time the Islamic Revolution had entered only  it second decade) and therefore the role of the Western So called Free World was to support regime change by encouraging and supporting Iranians in their struggle for freedom and efforts to overthrow the regime including through Armed Resistance if necessary in the same way American and the Allies helped the French Resistance during WWII against the Pétain government and it was the French who liberated Paris not the allies.

From that point of view I don't consider the use of the term "Eye of the Octopus" used to design the center of power of the Islamic Republic as being in the hands of Khamenei an exagerated term. For It is the Velayateh Fagih and the close mafia guard that supports him who are running the country and decide on the outcome of elections and decide when to limit the power of the President.

Also in retrospect its easy to criticize but when 9/11 did occur it took EVERYONE by Surprise but my first reaction even if I did not write it was that hardliners in Iran's leadership were behind this tragedy on American soil.

So I believe that by using the Term "Eye of the Octopus" being in Tehran he was trying to convey the "De Gaulle" Like Rhetoric which he tried to express in his own words but they had the opposite effect.

At least RP seemed to have learned from his mistake this time and as the French say:

"Seul Les Imbeciles ne changent Pas"

And as he has repeated in his two Books Winds of Change and A Time to Choose that he did not believe that he has ALL the Answers or Right solutions BUT what Mattered was UNITY ON THE ESSENTIAL VALUES and TO FOCUS ON OUR NATIONAL PRIORITIES :

That is my opinion too.



Reza Pahlavi has NEVER

by Sassan (not verified) on

called for the bombing of Iran, surgical or otherwise!!!!!!!!!! NEVER!!!

Irandokht, I've read many of your posts, and it's my humble opinion that a lot of what you say harbors on misinformation! And when someone asks for a LINK to your blatant accusation, you CONVENIENTLY say that you heard him on "radio" after the 9/11 attacks!

I've followed RP's website since 2000 -- and I've NEVER heard him say NOT ONCE that he favored the bombing or invasion of Iran -- NEVER!!!

Every time the topic has come up, he has clearly stated that Iran's nuclear facilities belong to the people of Iran and that a military attack would only help the regime crack down even harder on dissent. Furthermore, an attack is NOT necessary to deal with this situation. He has ALWAYS stated clearly that the WEST should empower the PEOPLE of Iran so that they can remove the mullahs!

Irandokht, it's truly UNFAIR for you to come on here and practically slander Pahlavi (maliciously!) and base your slander upon what you say you heard on "radio." That's just all kinds of wrong! If he was a private figure and sued you in court for slander, you would be held liable for damages.

If he alledgedly did say what you claim he said on "radio," then surely there would be other statements of his that would corroborate the "radio" comment, but we all know such corroborating statements favoring an attack on Iran DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!

Nice try.



by Q on

First, I said nobody calls for bombings, even if they want them. Bush and Cheney were examples of this. Bush was close to ordering bombings of Iran according to many credible sources. Had Iraq gone slightly better, he might have. He sent 4 aircraft carriers to the PG. why do you think? Mahi giri?

OK, Nouraee, I'm in the mood to laugh,
None of the three have to give, so long as they're properly applied. The problem with sanctions, for example, is that they have not been properly applied in order to achieve the desired effect, which would be to have the masses revolt from within.

Oh really? You know of a way to "properly apply" sanctions? Please enlighten us about this plan, and then explain why it didn't work for Cuba and North Korea.

Kaveh jan, nobody is waiting to see US to "properly" apply sanctions, before they "rise up". This is a decision that has to happen without "proper" action by any foreign power. In fact, one of Ahmadinejad's best selling lines is that "I will make them treat us as equals".

How many times do you need to be bitten by a snake in order to realize that you can't change it's nature?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying! After the devestation in Iraq and Afghanistan, why should US motivations be trusted?

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

Who is calling for bombing? 

This obsession you have with Bush and Cheney and so-called neocons is honestly getting old. Especially considering the fact that to this point not a damn thing has changed beyond the shifting of troops from one theater of operations (Iraq) to another (Afghanistan).

RP has repeatedly called for an open and transparent government in Iran. He hasn't called for military strikes.

As for the beliefs, #1 makes absolute sense, and #2 makes even more sense. The IRI cannot be trusted in any way shape or form. Belief #3, there is nothing to talk or negotiate with the IRI about until they put a definitive end to their oppression, persecution, theft and just plain bullshitting of the Iranian people.

None of the three have to give, so long as they're properly applied. The problem with sanctions, for example, is that they have not been properly applied in order to achieve the desired effect, which would be to have the masses revolt from within.

Same with the idea of talk and negotiation. These idiots cannot be treated as equals, because they're NOT. They are not worthy of even a fraction of the respect they demand. This idea of engaging the mollahs makes me want to vomit.

As to nuclear technology.....I'll repeat my long-standing belief that the Iranian nation and people have the right to utilize available nuclear technology and to play a role in its continuing development for civilian use. But the mollahs cannot be trusted with it under any circumstances.

How many times do you need to be bitten by a snake in order to realize that you can't change it's nature? 


As to this nonsense assertion that RP risked Iranian lives with his words post 9/11, it just serves to prove that some people are utterly clueless as to the meaning behind them.

Indeed the eyes of the octopus are in Tehran, where this modern version of terrorism started. Anyone who wishes to dispute that is fooling no one but themselves. Rather than analyze the true meaning of the message, some people prefer to take a reactionary approach based solely upon emotion, using the fact that the former heir apparent was the messenger.


RP's statement after 9/11

by IRANdokht on

Right after the attacks of sept 11th 2001, RP spoke on the radio and tried to direct the attention to IRI even though IRI had no hand in 9/11, knowing well that GWB was looking for retalliation.  This action and speech was very dangerous and could have caused millions of Iranian casualties instead of the Iraqis and Afghans.

He said "Terrorism is like an octopus. The weak part of an octopus is its eyes. To kill an octopus, one should attack its eyes. The eyes of the terrorism octopus are in Tehran..." even though Iran had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. I don't think any of us likes terrorism, but why would he point the US guns at his own country if he was always against military attacks on Iran? 

These mixed signals are why people get confused. Many of the folks who call themselves monarchist have openly advocated surgical attacks and more strict sanctions, I had never heard RP or his people deny this publicly, maybe he didn't want to alienate his LA supporters... who knows.

That's why I was relieved to see a direct word from him on that effect.


PS: Darius jan thanks for being a gentleman. It's truly appreciated 


PLEASE! nobody "calls" for bombing anymore

by Q on

Nouraee, let me ask you a question.

Until 12 hours before the Iraq bombing, Bush and Cheney were both saying "we don't want war." Now just because they SAID this, did it make it true? All the neocons said it.

Even the Mojahedeen SAY they don't want war or bombing. It only means they understand where most of the Iranians and most of the world stands on this issue. Like politicians they talk from both sides of their mouths.

The real question is not what you are saying but what are you doing to prevent bombing of your country?

The fact is, if you want war, but you also want to stay popular, all you have to do is SAY you don't want war, but DESTROY every other solution. That's what Bush did.

Now, I have said in the past that RP is not nearly as radical/idiotic as many of his own followers some of whom actually even SAY that military action is necessary.

BUT, if you hold these beliefs at the same time:

1. Don't Bomb my country
2. Nuclear capability in the hands of IRI are "unacceptable."
3. Don't talk or negotiate with IRI.

I ask you, Nouraee, what is the solution that he is LEAVING open other than Sanctions and foreign funded intervention? And only the latter has a chance of succeeding. Funding terrorists or radical opposition is the same as war to me.

One of his three beliefs have to give. Which one is it going to be?

It's easy to say what you are against if you never have to say what you are for.

Kaveh Nouraee

For anyone to suggest that RP has ever called for strikes

by Kaveh Nouraee on

demonstrates the pinnacle of their ignorance.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of him as either an actual leader or as a symbolic one, not once has he ever called for a strike upon Iran.

Just when I thought people couldn't be any more uneducated or uninformed........


To Mehdi

by Le roi sans terre (not verified) on

He is advocating the Islamic Republic but can never hold a candle to you.


Very late but maybe, perhaps ... who knows

by Mehdi on

He may say he is against bombing (sure took him a long while, and did it ever so quietly) but in effect he's still advocating a revolution style regime removal. The only way that could happen today, in fact, is if there is bombing of Iran by the West. There is no other really practical way. So what is he advocating anyway?


"But who knows we may get

by Gimme a break (not verified) on

"But who knows we may get there if Jomhury Khah's ALSO make a move in our direction ..."

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze are you serious?! The miserable pofyuz sorry ass "Jomhury Khahs" cannot even agree among themselves to choose somebody for their own leader, let alone moving in other groups' directions .... hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!


RP never ever advocated bombing Iran as far as I know

by Mozabzab (not verified) on

When and where did he ever ask Israel or any other country to bomb Iran?!!!!!

please KINDLY provide link/s to that article/s or comment/s where he specifically asked for Iran's bombardment so that we can all put this issue to rest and do not SPECULATE any further.

Darius Kadivar

IRANdokht Small correction ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

RP never called for Any Strike on Iran be them surgical. Some of his followers may have siad that independantly and irresponsibly but not one be it even Daryoush Homayoun of the Constitutionalist Party ever made such statements. I do know that some LA TV's did support the idea of surgical strikes. But in all fairness RP doesn't run these LA Tv's to begin with nor did he ever make such a declaration be it in his interviews or public statements. You can look through his website for that matter and old interviews all of which are archived but you won't find any such statements.

I don't see how they could have possibly called on Strikes and help poor Iranian families back home get free medical treatment through their foundation for the children of Iran :

He can at worst be criticized for lack of reactivity or bad timing in his interviews or for responding to interview demands on FOX news known for their neo con lineage but that is very far from an endorsement of their editorial policies or any kind of support for a military intervention. As in the European Press he was also very clear about his call for a kind of Iranian Solidarnosc in support for democracy and Human Rights. He may not be the best leader for such a movement but at least he is supportive a little like the Pope was for Poland's Lech Walesa. Our problem is we have not yet a Lech Walesa so to speak nor a movement like solidarnosc to overthrow the Regime.

But who knows we may get there if Jomhury Khah's ALSO make a move in our direction ...

In Anycase Like Bakhtiar Said: Iran Harguez Nakhahad Mord

My Conviction too.




better late than never

by IRANdokht on

I am glad he's finally on board! :o)  Now RP has to also inform many of his followers who don't speak french of his new position. Most of them repeat Reza's previous stance which was for "attacks"...

I think he might be too optimistic in his response to "Comment y arriver?" at the end of the piece, even an uprising will not be without bloodshed, but I'm glad to see that RP has decided to speak up and ask Israel to not bomb Iran. Too many of his followers are behind Israel's decision and are cheering them on. (I know you're not DK but many do)

btw: I didn't know the expression "Le roi sans terre".  

Thanks for the article