Pahlavi on Fox

Reza Pahlavi interview with Fox News>>>Watch


more from Darius Kadivar

Hejab isnt the issue

by Nazanin Ghasemian on

Hello Sir, Colonel,
Please let me establish 3 things. I never asked monarchists to apologize. I respect you as my elder. However,  I do not agree with your view on monarchy or Iranian history.
I don't doubt that you love Iran. However, I do think that Iranian monarchists, comprised mainly of elders and their children, lack an understanding of Iranians, especially the importance of religion. I'll admit that I did not the importance of Shiism in Iran myself. Most monarchists think that Iranians are forced into Shiism. This is NOT true. Outside Tysons Corner and Westwood, in IRAN, people do regularly attend mosques and no one forces them to do so. This is following the religious education they receive in school. You can call them stupid and every other bad name, but it won't change the truth about Iranians. It is also the reason monarchists are viewed as silly and ridiculously out of touch.
Why are you attacking my scholarly credentials? I'm not asking to change Iran or have a leadership position. Reza Pahlavi does that. Thus the imperative is to carefully analyze what he says in the press/interviews. Same goes for other people who talk about Iran.
I am blogging and it's clear that the power of the written word is what bothers most monarchists like you. I never lived under the shah and that is why I rely on my family, books and secondary sources to learn about Iran's past. However, I do have the right as an Iranian-American who was born in Iran to judge whether Reza Pahlavi has any right to be viewed as a leader. He doesn't. And if my opinion counts for nothing, then please take a trip to Iran and ask regular people what they think of monarchy and Iran's past shah.
As I said previously, the only strong point on Reza Pahlavi's resume is is DNA.
Monarchists obsessed with hejab, when they should think more deeply about the importance of religion and not focus on one aspect of it they don't like.
Maybe if you all focused less on pointing attention to towelish headdress and victimized women, you'd be taken a bit more seriously. Until that point, I'd appreciate if you'd stop trying to debate this point.


Nazanin Ghasemian, for you, first thing is first

by Colonel Hemayat (not verified) on

we, Pro-Monarchists, have NOTHING to aoplogize for.
Revolution of 1979 was a grave and horrible mistake that three generations of us paid for it.
His majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, had his faults but to this day, we just find out more and more every day that he lived and died for making Iran a great country, Iranians had their heads up with pride for the first time after 1400 years. Reza Shah the great, any true Iranian will doubt his impact on Iran even to this date? Iran is not Afghanistan because of Reza Shah.
His highness Crowned prince Reza Pahlavi, is loved and respected by the average Iranian inside and outside of Iran, he will provide a smooth transition from this fucking theocracy to a true democracy, whether or not he will be a president or a king, will be Iranian’s choice, CHOICE people, votes, an election by the people of Iran, we will all have say in this.
As for the political experience, Scholarly credentials, deeds done for Iran, I ask the likes of Nazanin Ghasemian , what the fuck have you got, what the fuck have you done for your country that entitles you to question Reza Pahlavi ?
Take that fucking HEJAB off your hair, then speak, you are too narrow minded to make these bold statements.

Darius Kadivar


by Darius Kadivar on

Dear Mr, Rashidian,

With due respect, Its too easy to dismiss the monarchists with the same cliches associated to them. I do not think one can claim to their innefficiency or their lack of democratic convictions when they have no representation within the Iranian Parliament no more than the so-called reformists who do have their seats but cannot have their voices heard. The Restoration of the Monarchy is an Option that cannot be dismissed in the name of political prejudice.Neither is Reza Pahlavi advocating its restoration unless the people choose so through elections under international observers. And if ever restored, the Monarchy cannot be an absolute of as it has through its long history of 25 centuries. It will be most obviously inspired by the forefathers of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906 and the ideals of democracy, freedom and independance and values which they very much shared with the French Lumiere Philosophers who inspired the French Revolution of 1789 and the American Revolution of 1776. One cannot just wipe what remains a positive and constructive milestone in the history of modern Iran that goes back barely to a hundred years and which has been the root of all the struggles that our nation has had since, be it in regard to the abuse of Power by the two Pahlavi Kings, the Nationalisation of Oil by Prime Minister Mossadegh or the Coup that overthrew his government and last but not least the Islamic Revolution and its excess'. Put in the context of a century old struggle for equal Rights and Freedom of expression which we call Democracy today, the notion of a Constitutional Monarchy is far from absurd and the possibility of the restoration of the Pahlavi Dynasty but in the framework of a division of Powers as is the case in Spain, Belgium or Great Britian seems to me a realistic hypothesis given that we have little other an alternative that could guarantee a relatively bloodless transition that would require an Amnesty and protection by Law of all civil servants and public representatives of the current regime, and parliamentaries as long as they have not been involved in crimes against humanity ( as is the case of some who still are in power in Iran). Time will say if Reza Pahlavi ( also Crown Prince of Iran by Oath)will live up to the expectations of Iranians and put Iran back on the international landscape as a respected and reliable economic and political partner as any other nation that has some credit in the United Nations. I think that one cannot deny that the Monarchist and Reza Pahlavi until further notice have a card to play and that like any other figure of opposition( who seeks legitimacy through democratic means) deserves attention if not support. He represents a historical aspiration that is not incompatible with modern democracy and therefore it would be unfair to dismiss him in a debate on the political future of Iran.

My Humble Opinion!

Best, DK


Ahmad Chalabi was a "nobody"

by Nazanin Ghasemian on

I'm not convinced why Reza Pahlavi is even discussing Iran on TV. Does he have political experience? Scholarly credentials? Aside from his DNA?
"He doesn't want to install himself" ? No? Then how come mentions that monarchy as the ideal system for Iran. Please read his interviews more carefully.
He was hopeless before the Bush administration and 9/11, when he had no voice aside from his dad's generals, etc... The congressional profile of RP even says so:
"SON OF THE FORMER SHAH. Some Iranian exiles, as well as some elites still in Iran, want to replace the regime with a constitutional monarchy led by Reza Pahlavi, the U.S. based son of the late former shah and a U.S. trained combat pilot. He does NOT appear to have a large-scale support inside Iran. In January 2001, the Shah's son, who is about 50 years old, ENDED A LONG PERIOD OF INACTIVITY BY GIVING A SPEECH in DC CALLING FOR UNITY IN OPPOSITION AND THE INSITUTION OF CONSITUTIONAL MONARCHY AND DEMOCRACY IN IRAN. He has since broadcast messages into Iran from Iranian exile-run stations in California. His political advisor is Shariar Ahy, MIT educated." (page 12)
That's the paragraph about the monarchist's lone ranger.
I wonder how he can use that combat fighter training to "help" his country. Pathetic.


Monarchy Is Dead In Iran

by J. Rashidian (not verified) on

Political attitude of Monarchists is not against fundament of dictatorship in general, but only the dictatorship of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The reason of their opposition against the "Mullahs" is far from defending people’s interests, democracy and freedom in Iran.

They confront only a little part of Iranian history, namely the post revolution from 1979 on. They advance their personal political ambitions at the expense of people's interests.

If Reza Pahlavi were honest and patriotic enough he would give up his claim for the illegitimate throne, in the meanwhile would join the majority of Iranians who want a democratic regime with no Mullah, no Shah and no unelected despot in any form.

It is for a neutral observer not very difficult to realise that a number of monarchist activists, journalists, and sympathisers can neither represent the Iranian intelligentsia nor mass of people. They are not in the position to convey a message of solidarity to oppressed people in Iran, but a change of leadership, what does not change the end of dictatorship.

The analogy between the Islamic regime and the monarchism is that they both seek to charge people by fanatical values. They both operate from the same dictatorial ambitions and propagate dubious notions to justify their parasitic existence. Monarchists are comedy examples for democracy and they try to fool Iranians.

Through their falsification of history, monarchists seek to legitimate the Pahlavi dynasty, and furthermo, Reza Pahlavi as the legitimate crown prince -- today Americans acknowledge their role in the 53 coup illegally staging the Shah on the throne.

In the beginning of 16th century, the Savvied Empire imposed a sect of Islam, Schism, long time repressed by Sunnis, on Iranians. Since then, it became the state religion. The impetus of Schism against Arabs and then Turks brought racism in Iranian culture, which is mainly against these two populations and has been coloured unwillingly in our popular culture. This cynic culture was propagated under the late Shah to divert people from all ills of his dictatorship.

In my opinion, monarchy is dead in Iran. The monarchist propagandists attempt to disturb the process of an inevitable progress in which Iran be a democratic, secular and modern republic.

Monarchist boses are the old Savaki or old servants of royal places or some sold intellectuals. Monarcism today is a US backed right-wing trash of the Shah's regime, once in power they will re-establish a corrupt monarchist dictatorship in Iran.


Re: Iranian Dude

by Jamshidd (not verified) on

Iraniand Dude, you say that "Traitorous microbes like you are willing to make Iranian civilians suffer through war and sanctions just so Reza Pahlavi can move into the Niavaran Palace..."
No Iranian dude, we do not want our fellow countrymen to suffer. Don't be such an Islamist and put words in our mouth. We do not want suffering nor war. And we don't want your likes either. We don't want "Traitorous microbes like you who are willing to make Iranian civilians suffer" through the rule of the mullahs who are arresting, murdering, raping, torturing the people and stealing the national weatlh to stay in power either.
Pahalvi and Rajavi are "strangulating Iran"??? Are you kidding me? You and the IRI have been strangulating Iran for 29 years and counting.
So crawl back to your hole and stay there you miserable "cancerous microbe"



by Anonymous-haha (not verified) on

hating this jerk and traitor does not mean I am mullah-loving patriot.

to all those people who love the monarch,maybe you guys should create your own country in Falkland island.have farah pahlavi as your queen.



by Irooni (not verified) on

man be in masale eteghaade kaamel daaram ke hich kas delesh be haale iran va irooni nasokhteh va nakhaahad sookht. in jaakeshha masle baande rajavi koskesh bekhatere gereftane ghdrat madare khodesho sar mibore. az avalesh hamin bood va hamin khahad bood.gereftane ghodrat, ghaarateh mamlekat va az bein bordane har shahrvandi ke sade raheshoon beshe.


Iranians are too dumb an

by Anonymousq (not verified) on

Iranians are too dumb an backward to deserve anything better than the mullahs. Let the mullahs reign forever and destroy Iran. All you idiots are soon going to be speaking Arabic and there will be nothign left of your Iranain culture; only Bedouin arab. Please change the name of the country too...Iran is dead; the mullahs killed Iran 30 years ago.



by sleeps on

I don't get it, from the start Reza Pahlavi has stated he has no intentions of 'ruling' Iran and will play any role the Iranian people ask of him, if any! Yet we still find fanatic-like Iranians, whether leftists, rightists, members of the Rajavi clan, or worse supporters of the current regime... that go on ranting about Reza Pahlavi wishing to take over Iran, live in 'Niavaran Palace' and such. No where in this interview does he say such things that some people consistently claim!!

He is the only reputable and respected Iranian figure that the world recognizes as a true advocate of democracy and freedom in Iran, and is the only person that is ever asked to voice his opposition against the Iranian regime by the international media and organizations yet we still find some Iranians that insist on bashing him... why?

What is wrong with his statement that Ahmadinejad doesn't represent the Iranian people, because the Iranian people don't believe in war with the West, the destruction of Israel or the 'non-existent' holocaust claimed by Ahmadinejad.. is that soooo wrong that he's not trying to vilify our people and country like Ahmadinejad and the rest of the IR of Iran??


No Akhonds, No Islam, NO

by Annoyed (not verified) on

No Akhonds, No Islam, NO Kings...All we want is just Republic of Iran...


Actually, I don't agree with

by parsua (not verified) on

Actually, I don't agree with the idea of him, becoming king of idiots like you! You deserve Akhoonde shepeshoo! that's all!


This idiot, Reza Pahlavi,

by Annoyed (not verified) on

This idiot, Reza Pahlavi, still thinks he can go back to Iran and become a King!!!!Keep on dreaming...


Thanks for proving my point, douche-bag

by Iranian dude (not verified) on

After 28 years of waiting for the mollahs' regime to fall, you've totally lost your mind (what little of it you had)...Traitorous microbes like you are willing to make Iranian civilians suffer through war and sanctions just so Reza Pahlavi can move into the Niavaran Palace. The Rajavi "opposition" fought on Saddam's side in the 1980s; now, both the Pahlavists and Mojahedin are working with the U.S. and Israeli governments in order to try and strangulate Iran--the same way Uncle Sam coaxed Saddam to attack Iran in 1980.


To anonymous-haha Do you

by Anonymous911 (not verified) on

To anonymous-haha

Do you work for the mullahs? Are you an Arab? What will happen to you and your family if the mullahs are overthrown? Are you worried about your fate?


Only hope for Iranian "opposition" is a US invasion

by Iranian dude (not verified) on

Don't believe for one minute if the Pahlavi and Rajavi followers tell you that they oppose an attack on Iran by the U.S. and/or Israel. An attack on Iran is their ONLY hope to come to power; no popular uprising in Iran would support these people. Of course, they know that they can't OPENLY support an attack against Iran, so they are forced to do so behind closed doors when they meet with their patrons in the U.S. and Israeli governments. In the case of Rajavi's people, they already have a history of fighting on Saddam's side against Iran...In the meantime, the best that they can do is to support economic sanctions in the hope that they can strangulate the country and bring it to its knees. As you can see, they truly have the Iranian peoples' best interests at heart.


fucking liar!!

by Anonymous-haha (not verified) on

"Unlike the rest of the Islamic or Arab world, the relationship between Persia and the Jews goes back to the days of Cyrus the Great. We take pride as Iranians of having a history where Cyrus was the most quoted figure in the Torah, as a liberator of Jewish slaves, who went to Babylon and gave them true freedom for them to worship and in fact helped them build a temple."

fucking white man ass-kisser former traitor of Iran,listen!!

The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire had given refuge for Jews when they were expelled from Spain. The very Torah that you said kept mentioning Cyrus was perserved in the Arab Muslim empire.

There were times when Jewish people were untouchable in pleasing the white men by lying how persians and jews are good buddies make you sound like a retard.

plus idiot,Iran is not just Persians,we have Kurds,Arabs and Azeris,just in case you have never visited Iran.

plus,Israel has attacked Syria last month and Lebanon last year and It's a not threat????????
morroco and spain were your examples!!!pathetic!!

stay put in America and don't ever dare to put your dirty feet in my holy land!!


Oh yes, this story has a whole lot of credibility

by Bavafa on

Oh yes, this story has a whole lot of credibility. it is our beloved prince, the savior and being aired on FOX news. What a joke.


Darius Kadivar

FYI/Shah's exiled son: Don't attack Iran (HAREETZ) By Lily Galil

by Darius Kadivar on



Shah's exiled son: Don't attack Iran

By Lily Galili

PRAGUE - Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last shah of Iran, suggests taking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to annihilate Israel very seriously. However, he suggests refraining from military action against his country.

That's not what scares the regime there," he explains. "What scares it are the opponents from within, who should be strengthened. An attack from outside could give this regime carte blanche to do anything, and even lead to a nationalist awakening that would bring into its camp people who do not belong to it now."

Pahlavi spoke with Haaretz at a gathering in Prague of dissidents from 17 countries that was sponsored by the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center. For the past 19 years he has lived in Washington, where he married a woman of Iranian descent and fathered three daughters. He operates from the exile he entered at age 19 like a bench player who practices determinedly for the moment when he is called to step back onto the court. Two years ago he even went on a hunger strike to demand the release of political prisoners, even though he cannot escape the fact that during his father's reign there were many political prisoners in Iran.

"I am not saying there were no mistakes made under the previous regime," he says. "But you have to remember the context of that time. Those were the days of the Cold War, and there was in Iran a sense that the Soviet Union wanted to turn us into its satellite. I can understand why the public went along with the revolution, but I also know that no one wished for the tragic result of today."

Iranian exiles, who come from polar opposite groups, have a complicated attitude toward the Shah's son, and their interests truly overlap only in the desire to overthrow the current regime.

Asked whether he supports a return of the monarchy, Pahlavi replies diplomatically. "The people will decide," he says. "One of the options is indeed a parliamentary monarchy. That suits the character of our people. In heterogeneous societies, the monarchy is a symbol of unity".

Pahlavi says he has been feeling encouraged lately, especially following the recent statements on Iran by France's new president.

"It is possible that the divide-and-conquer system that sabotages the efforts to eradicate such regimes is now being replaced by greater unity," he says hopefully. "We have in Iran now an inquisition like the one they had in Europe and that was followed by the Renaissance. We are not far from that. Iran needs a further push, additional pressure on the regime by means of sanctions that hurt the system without hurting its citizens.... The Iranians must become convinced that the world is serious enough not to abandon them along the way."

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Shah's son is accorded a wary respect. He wasn't an original invitee to the conference, which was organized by Natan Sharansky, Vaclav Havel and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and whose high point was an appearance by George Bush en route to the G-8 meeting. With so many conflicting interests among the regimes the human rights crusaders hailed from including Egypt, Sudan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and others it was hard to spot the unifying political interest, aside from the participants' subjective feeling that they represent absolute good opposing the absolute evil in the world. At times, the uniting factor was anger at Bush, like that which linked Garry Kasparov, a vehement Putin opponent, and Saad al-Din Ibrahim, a noted freedom fighter from Egypt and longtime opponent of Mubarak's. For years they have felt that Bush betrayed them along the way, based on erroneous considerations, and they got a chance to tell him so during a brief meeting with the U.S. president in Prague.


"Israel been a threat to anyone?"

by Nazanin Ghasemian on

Here's Reza Pahlavi's on Israel. He squeezes in a nice dose of pre-Islamic Iranian history, because it seems very relevent to the modern Middle Eastern political landscape in his view.
"Human Events: You would not demand that Israel disarm?
RP: Since when has Israel been a threat to anyone? Israel just wants to be left alone and live in peace side by side with its neighbors. As far as I’m concerned, Israel never had any ambition to territorially go and invade, I don’t know, Spain or Morocco or anywhere else. And let me tell something else about Iran: Unlike the rest of the Islamic or Arab world, the relationship between Persia and the Jews goes back to the days of Cyrus the Great. We take pride as Iranians of having a history where Cyrus was the most quoted figure in the Torah, as a liberator of Jewish slaves, who went to Babylon and gave them true freedom for them to worship and in fact helped them build a temple. We have a biblical relation with Jews, and we have no problem with modern day Israel. As far as regional politics, I believe, I think many Iranians believe so, that as much as Israel has a right to exist, so should the Palestinians. They have to work the problem between each other. And we have no business interfering, and we need to help get as much stability in the region.
A democratic regime in Iran would be doing that, but a clerical regime in Tehran that sends money to Hamas and to Hizballah and to all the terrorists around the globe obviously is not promoting stability and peace, it is doing the reverse."
How come Israeli foreign dignitaries do not mention this glorious biblical relationship with Iran? Why is Reza Pahlavi so good at talking about the past and not about modern Iran? Such a sad, illusional figure.


What a disaster

by Nazanin Ghasemian on

Last year, he told Human Events that he's finalizing the organization of a movement to overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with a perfect, pure democratic government. 
"He believes the cause is urgent because of the prospect that Iran may soon develop a nuclear weapon or the U.S. may use military force to preempt that. He hopes to offer a way out of this dilemma: a revolution sparked by massive civil disobedience in which the masses in the streets are backed by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the United States, said he has been in contact with elements of the Revolutionary Guard that would be willing to play such a role, and activists who could help spark the civil disobedience.
He also said that the U.S. and other governments can help by imposing “smart sanctions” on the leaders of Iranian regime." 
He's better off discussing what he means by "smart sanctions", considering that after he leaves the Fox Studios he grabs a steak and sushi with his family.  
His proposal is to stay in Potomac, wait for the faithful followers to sacrifice and "revolt", and then swoop in and reign as King. Disaster. This is much much worse than VOA, because Americans will view him as a Chalabi figure and be less inclined to oppose military intervention.