Pahlavi shahs in TV series

Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah depicted in "Emarat e Kolah Farangi"


Recently by mehrdadmCommentsDate
Omid Djalili: The Baha'i Faith in Words and Images
Dec 05, 2012
Dimmed Lanterns
Dec 05, 2012
Iranian TV shows off 'captured US ScanEagle drone'
Dec 04, 2012
more from mehrdadm

Men like Him

by Anonymous5656 (not verified) on

Iran needs people true leaders like Reza Shah to get us out of the nightmare which we've been in for the last thirty years. All the different opposition groups regardless of their idealogy should agree that he single handedly modernized Iran. May he rest in peace. We're truely an un-appreciative nation.


Americans for a Democratic Republic in Iran?

by Faribors Maleknasri M. D. (not verified) on

and for what kind of Republic in the Unites States of America?

Michael Mahyar Hojjatie

I've seen about a third of it.

by Michael Mahyar Hojjatie on

It was on the satellite at my parent's house at like 3am on a weekday so I couldn't manage to sit through it all, but it does have really good production values and the set design and costumes/wardrobe are awesome for a period piece. Story and political controversy aside, I'd love to see it from start to finish, enough to where I would just buy a DVD of it without even having seen it the whole way through!


"Davood Banayan"

by Sassan (not verified) on

I've noticed several times that you have managed to literally suck the life out of any particular blog you have participated in -- congratulations on achieving your goal! If your therapist is out of town for the week, you may want to check into a closet and close the door and wait there until the good doctor comes back -- your brain is way too creepy.


The Khomayni question

by Davood_Banayan on

Americans for a Democratic Republic in Iran.

In 1963 Ruh'Allah Moosavi Khomayni questioned the law of "Capitulation".  The Capitulation laws were laws that were accepted by the Shah that stated that foreign workers are exempt from Iranian law.  Khomayni was met by CIA agents and advised not to question America intervention in Iran.  What did Khomayni do next?  He made a long boring speech about US intervention in Iran.  In the end of the speech he said, "who is ruling Iran?  Iranians or the US?  If the U.S. is making the decisions than there is no need for Iranians, why doesn't the Shah just exile all Iranians."

What happened next?  

The Shah exiled Khomayni to Turkey, Iraq and then France after being advised to do so by the American government.

Technological advances in Iran would have happened no matter who was in power.

The 20th and 21st century 1st world needs 3rd world labor to be the back bone of their economies.

During the Qajars Oil was discovered in Iran.  During Mossadegh Iranian Oil was nationalized.  During Khomayni the monarchy in Iran was once and for all abolished.  And today Iran earns more in Oil revenues than ever before.

Is todays Oil revenue in Iran due to the theocracy?


Yet, According to some idiots, for some odd reason every advance in Iran was done by the Pahlavis.

That's just absurd.

Reza Khan, the illiterate stable boy turned Cazrist Russian trained Cossack Colonel stable boy installed by U.K. to be Iran's King in 1925 and removed for being a Nazi lover in 1941 was a major player in 20th century advance in Iran?

And his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an equally ignorant individual with minimal intellect, who went to school in Switzerland at the Le Rosey School and failed miserably was the reason for advance in Iran from 1941 to 1979.  That is just plain absurd.

We keep on getting jibberish here on this site by some fools.

 Maybe, there was a reason the 2 man dynasty was abolished.

Maybe, 30 million Iranians in the streets in 1979 was not just a "funny joke".

Maybe, someone out there is just plain stupid.

With regards to Khomayni when asked, "how do you feel about returning to Iran"

The answer Khomayni gave was "nothing".


Because Iranian Shia Muslim priests believe the world is made for human beings.  France was as much as a home for Khomayni as was Iraq, Turkey and Iran .

I don't agree with that statement.  I love America because America is the best.

yet, Khomayni has a point.

And that point is similar to the role of the United Nations.  And the United Nations was accepted by the Shah, Khomayni and it was created by the United States.  So it can't be wrong.

Now if you have a problem with Khomayni's statement, you must also have a problem with the U.N.

If you have a problem with the U.N. then you have a problem with the U.S.

If you have a problem with the U.S.

Well, then, you can go to hell.





such a shame

by Fatollah (not verified) on

A man who did so much for Iran in a time there was no hope for Iran! He was truely a Great man despite his rough attitude.


Mullah Khomeini

by Sassan (not verified) on

did NOT care one bit about Iran! This is the Hendi mullah who once said, "We don't care if Iran goes up in smoke, so long as Islam survives." And this is the same Hendi mullah who once said "Hichi," in response to a question from Peter Jennings as to how he feels about going back to Iran after 15 years in exhile.

Mullah Khomeini did NOT care whatsoever about Iran! All he cared about was the survival of Islam! As far as he was concerned, Iran was a vehicle to be "used" in the pursuit of saving Islam. These religious fanatics don't even believe in the concept of a nation-state. They believe in their "Islamic community," their beloved "Ummah," which could include 20 or 30 or as many countries there are in the world. In short, for the ayatollahs, Iran was/is a chess piece to be used to expand their power.

As for this Banayan character...

Seriously, you need serious therapy or a serious lesson in history. This guy writes: "So the Qajar dynasty had only 14 years of Oil revenues. Yet the Qajars were in power longer than the Pahlavis. How is that possible?"

How is that possible? Because the Qajars only cared about their harams and palaces! They did not care about modernizing Iran. The British only got rid of leaders they perceived to be threats, i.e, Mossadegh, Reza Shah, and the late Shah. And they only got rid of Ahmad Shah because in 1925, their foreign policy required a "strongman" type in Iran to unite the country and fight against the NEW threat of communism on Iran's northern border.

The Shah could have laid back in his palaces or harams and kissed the back of the akhunds asses and let Iran remain backward and Reza Pahlavi would be king today! But both Pahlavi kings rejected the idea of a backward Iran and tried to modernize the neglected nation and they got the boot because of their efforts!

This joker continues, "Ayat'Allah Khomeini ruled Iran for 10 years and out lasted the Iran-Iraq War. Ayat'Allah Khamenei ruled from 1989-2009(Present), that's 20 years. That totals 30 years of theocracy. How can this happen without popular support?"

First of all, the Shah was in power for 37 years! And as to your question of "how can this happen without popular support?" It's called massive OPPRESSION and VIOLENCE against the Iranian public. That's how the IRI has remained in power for 30 years WITHOUT public support.


The Pahlavi dynasty

by Davood_Banayan on

Americans for a Democratic Republic in Iran.

It is interesting that when the dictatorship of the Pahlavi dynasty is mentioned some  compare it to the dark days of the Qajar dynasty.  The Qajars dynasty came into power in Iran in 1794.  Oil exploration in Iran began in 1901.  Iranian history prior to the discovery of Oil is useless.  To say the Qajars had nothing is correct.  So what?  The Pahlavi dynasty had access to Oil revenues yet, they were always at risk of being removed.  Iranian exports of Oil began in 1911.  The Qajars ruled until 1925.  That's only 14 years.  The Qajar dynasty was a disaster but the Pahlavi dynasty wasn't paradise.  Ahmad Shah Qajar ruled from 1909-1925.  1911 was the year of the first Iranian Oil exports.  So the Qajar dynasty had only 14 years of Oil revenues.  Yet the Qajars were in power longer than the Pahlavis.  How is that possible?  Iranian hatred towards the Pahlavis led to the Pahlavi dynasty downfall.  Even a useless Qajar dynasty without any Oil revenues for most of their time in power out lasted the Pahlavi dynasty.  And the Pahlavi dynasty was on a perpetual down fall.  Reza Khan was removed after 16 years in power.  Mohammad Reza's reign was interrupted in his 12th year in power.  And after the CIA, MI6 and Mossad created SAVAK was the Shah able to barely survive for another 26 years.  The mere fact that the theocracy has out lasted each Pahlavi by continuous rule proves that there was something inherently wrong with the Pahlavi dynasty.  Ayat'Allah Khomeini ruled Iran for 10 years and out lasted the Iran-Iraq War.  Ayat'Allah Khamenei ruled from 1989-2009(Present), that's 20 years.  That totals 30  years of theocracy.  How can this happen without popular support?  

The mere fact that the theocracy has out lasted any continuous leadership of any of the Pahlavi man just shows that the Pahlavi dynasty was one big joke.  And that joke was not even a good one.

If the Pahlavi dynasty should be thanked for anything, it should be thanked for abandoning Iran and leaving the country to the Iranian theocracy in January 1979.

Evey advance mentioned after the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty that occurred in Iran was done by others.

Maybe, the ideas were planned during the Pahlavi dynasty but, they were implemented during the theocracy.  And to take credit for something done by the theocracy is somewhat hypocritical.

Such being said, one must conclude that the Pahlavi dynasty wanted to hand over Iran to the theocracy in January 1979.  At least that was the desire of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is buried in the Al Rifa'i Mosque in Cairo,

How appropriate?  He is buried in a religious environment, the same type of environment Mohammad Reza Pahlavi handed Iran to.



When I'm talking about objectivity

by Anonymoses on

When you say Mullahs are you also referring to people like Montazeri who has vehemently opposed the current government? What about people like Shariati who were very religious but secularists, and surely would have ben completely disillusioned with the current system of Iran? Using blanket terms does not help anyone... the religious elements of Iran have both been victimized dissendents and opressors.

In terms of the "revolutionaries" What about Mehdi Bazargan who supported the revolution full stop and became the first prime minister post-revolution but then said "The greatest threat to Islam in Iran since the revolution has been the experience of living under the Islamic Republic" (ref: //

My point at the end of the day is that Iran is a religious country, and to overlook that is a big mistake, and clerics and such are a powerful group, but ideally they should be a powerful group OUTSIDE the government, like any other lobby group represting people/ideologies/etc. hell even a religious party would be fine, but they shouldn't be making up the ENTIRE government.

Dude I don't know how the Iranian 100% to blame, when SADDAM ATTACKED US. If you think Iran was trying to jeopardize its fragile government at the time by attacking Iran-- you seriously need to pick up a history book. Iran was seen as a threat at that time to every country in the middle east, and Iraq was prodded to attack Iran to destablize the country. But internally it turned out the proloned war was totally good for neutralizing all opposition (or alternatively getting rid of them by throwing them in front mines) and externally  it turned out that the prolonged war made a good weapons business.

I am not disputing that the war was unneccarily prolonged, we had multiple chances to make peace with Iraq and they never did it until we praticlaly lost the war... I don't think anyone does... That's why Bazargan was so pissed with the religious ruling power. that's why I'm absolutely unhappy with the selection of /shady-Mousavi/ as the "reformist" and sad that Iranians are putting so much faith in him when we saw how he performed for 8 years. But I am hoping for the best because MA has taken us to the brink of war.

Look man, I am being incredibly objective (you on the other hand keep yelling MULLAHS MULLAHS) there is not one person to blame-- Iranian religious factions, the monarchy, the US. You want me to concede that Reza Shah cared about Iran, yet you would never concede that Khomeini cared about Iran. For me, yeah sure they "cared" about Iran, they were both Iranians, and I'm pretty sure neither one wanted to see Iran destroyed... but in the arrogance their visions as to what would be a better Iran WERE WRONG WRONG WRONG.  

On the other hand Mossadegh had the right idea, he had democracy, he had secularism and nationalization... When looking at history set aside your personal biases for a second please. That's the only way we can ever understand where we are, and where we need to go. The lies need to stop.



by Sassan (not verified) on

Yes, I wish you were a little more objective, or at least a little more educated in history.

You write: "Sassan, don't be rediculous... only one person cared about this country and that was Mossadegh and look where he ended up."

Bullcrap! Reza Shah ALSO cared about Iran, and look where he ended up, in freaking South Africa! And the Shah also cared about Iran, and look where he ended up, in north Africa (Egypt). And Mossadegh also cared about Iran, and look where he ended up, under house arrest -- all of these modernizing leaders were overthrown by the British, with tremendous assistance from the akhunds!!!

The British were behind the destruction of EVERY modernizing leader in Iran since Amir Kabir! And their loyal servants, the charlatan akhunds, were the direct beneficiaries of every British act of interference in our internal affairs!

You also say: "However when you speak about the planes and technology pre-revolution... please keep in mind that for the last 30 years Iran has been under ~sanctions~, and it did go through a DECADE long war (that's not just 10 years of standing still, but 10 years of going backwards)..."

Guess what? As I've written before, the MULLAHS were the ones who GREATLY benefited from the Iran-Iraq war!!! In fact, in 1982, after Iran had kicked all of Iraq's army out of Khoramshahr, the Saudis and other rich Arab states offered Khomeini 80 Billion dollars in war reparation -- that's 80 BILLION in 1982 dollars!!! -- if they would sign a peace treaty! But Khomeini rejected the offer and claimed that Iran would not stop until it captured Karbala!

And from 1982 through 1988, over 500,000 Iranian soldiers were UNNECESSARILY killed and Khoramshahr still lays in ruins!!!! All because the militant fanatic muslims in Iran wanted to export their dirty revolution into Shiite Iraq! That was tantamount to treason against the Iranian nation!

The reason the akhunds wanted to prolong and continue the war is because they USED the war against Iraq to their great benefit -- to solidify their base in Tehran and kill off all of their enemies at home!!! The war gave them the perfect EXCUSE to liquidate their internal rivals!!!

So, don't tell me that part of the reason Iran is backward and decaying today is because of the Iran-Iraq war -- the mullahs are 100% to blame for the continuation of that bloody war because they INTENTIONALLY prolonged it so they could solidify their power base at home!!! As such, now you can't complain about the war's deteriorating effects!


Out of touch

by Anonymoses on

It actually disturbs me how absolutely out of touch the Iranians in diaspora are with the average Iranians in Iran (aka the majority, aka not the ones living in shomal shahre tehran). The ones who still preface their letters with /in the name of god/, who go to the bazaar to buy sabzii and eat noon barbari o panir in the morning, go sizdah bedari and ashura, who sing poems in the taxi...

you guys are absolutely out of touch. out of touch. out of touch with your hamvatans.


A little objectivity

by Anonymoses on

Sassan, don't be rediculous... because I don't support the corrupt shah doesn't mean i support the current government. As I said, only one person cared about this country and that was Mossadegh and look where he ended up.

however when you speak about the planes and technology pre-revolution... please keep in mind that for the last 30 years Iran has been under ~sanctions~, and it did go through a DECADE long war (that's not just 10 years of standing still, but 10 years of going backwards), while the Shah was getting support from foreign powers (in fact I know a couple of American engineers who worked in Iran right up to the revolution etc)  

let's attempt to be a little objective shall we...?

"I think most Iranian Women would wholeheartingly accept the Bullet as a Gift from Heaven rather than live in the HELL you and your friends created for them !"  

and for the dude who suggested this... I am not even going to attempt to ask you to be rational, except stop throwing silly statements around on behalf of the women of Iran, at least I'm a tiny bit more qualified than yourself and let me say we don't want to take a bullet for anyone... you however, are free to go right ahead. /misogynisism in it's finest form


Imagine if there was no

by azadi55 (not verified) on

Imagine if there was no Pahlavis and rather than Reza Shah coming to power, Khomaini or some other mulla had siezed power. Can you imagine how backwards Iran would be now? we would probably be worse off than Afghanistan. Not that we are that far from them now, but still. I think the world would be a much more messed up place too. Although, there is also the possibility that IRI would have run its course by now, and a revolution would bring back true freedom to Iran, free of clergy ruling Iran.


Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi

by فائزه هاشمی رفسنجانی (not verified) on

Ruhash shaad. He was a great leader.

Also, I strongly support Reza Pahlavi and believe he can contribute a great deal to the cause of freedom in Iran. I've suggested it before and I was expelled from my homeland by my chauvinist dictator father.


Ye Irani

by Sassan (not verified) on

As a "Pahlavi supporter" I will admit to the British support for Reza Shah in ousting Ahmad Shah if you IRI supporters admit to MASSIVE British support for mullah Khomeini in the removal of the Shah.

Stop this game you people play! Of course the British helped overthrow Ahmad Shah and the late Pahlavi Shah, that's what colonial powers do to protect their own interests. And the mullahs have protected the British interests in Iran very well for 30 long years!

And don't tell me that the Pahlavi contributions were cosmetic -- that's bullcrap and you know it! Everything we have in Iran TODAY is because of the late Shah and his father, including the nuclear program, the subway system and even the new airport.

And for those who don't know the real history of petro-dollars in Iran, here's the skinny version: the Shah only had 5 years of OPEC oil money to work with in Iran, from 1973-1978. The corrupt mullahs have had 30 LONG years of OPEC oil money to steal and play with!!!

Before the creation of OPEC in 1973 (a brainchild of the Shah), Iran was getting peanuts for its oil sales, thanks to the oil contracts signed by the Qajars with the British Knox D'arcy. That means the Palavi kings had very little oil profits to work with throughout their dynasty!!!

As of 1951, before-OPEC, a barrel of oil sold for ONE DOLLAR on the international markets!!! In 1971, a barrel of oil was only THREE DOLLARS!!! In the Summer of 2008 alone, the mullahs were selling Iran's oil for up to $145 per barrel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only with the creation of OPEC in 1973 did Iran FINALLY get FAIR MARKET VALUE for its oil sales, which was twelve dollars per barrel back then.

This quaruple of oil prices semmingly over night sent shock waves throughout the western world in the early-to-mid 1970's. No wonder at about this time, the favorable stories about the Shah in Life Magazine and others turned to very unfavorable ones in the western media. Now, after the hike in oil prices, the media in the west referred to the Shah as a "tyrant" and he suddenly was discovered to "torture" people, which was grossly exaggerated I might add.

In short, all the so-called "advancements" that you speak of during the IRI years have been fueled by 30 long years of OPEC fair value prices for Iran's oil, whereas the Shah only had 5 short years of fair market value for Iran's oil! And how much of this hugely profitable oil sales have the ayatollahs STOLEN and deposited in Swiss bank accounts?


So much British has done in the world

by Ye Irani (not verified) on

I wonder if pahlavi loyals attest to the role of Britain in driving ahmad shah out and bringing Reza mir panj in the Gowd.

Iran's facial change during pahlavi was an inevitable change in the course of history driven by global changes and petro dollars.

I think we have done whole lot infra structural changes during Akhounds compared to few in pahlavis.

Lets hope that we will have a more pragmatic rule in Iran in the future.


God Bless The Pahlavi's

by t (not verified) on

May their soul rest in peace.


Pahlavi Dynasty

by Sassan (not verified) on

For those who think that 1925-1978 was a dark time in Iran's history, you DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT IRAN'S HISORTY between 1796-1925. If you did, you wouldn't let the sort of ignorant jibberish to escape your mouth. Stop sounding so darn foolish and go read about what a joke Iran was in the 19th century -- we were the laughing stock of Europe! You people seriously need to read more objective books and write less asinine comments.

I know some of you have your twisted agendas, and this "Davoud Banayan" either belongs in a circus or is NOT Iranian or is a professional LIAR. That's all I will say -- the Pahlavi's record, if studied OBJECTIVELY, speaks for itself.

Long live Reza Shah-e-Kabir and his noble son, the late great Shah of Iran -- both of whom did more for Iran than all the kings combined in the last 1,000 years, if not more!


by ali39 (not verified) on

you wrote some funny stuff!
"savak tortured millions...." "huyser went to save the shah..." can't pile on more crappy nonsense than that?!
huyser was sent to neutralize the army and bring in khomeini! general badrei's widow was our neighbor and she said that huyser had a list of names with the generals who were supposed to be "eliminated" because they posed a threat to the akhoonds' plans....and badrei was shot in cold blood in his office by one of huysers black soilders!
as for savak, this nonsense about millions being tortured is so funny that I'm not even gonna comment on it....
as long as we have individuals like you, iran is doomed!
may god save iran in 09


Did Reza Shah annoint Shah? I thought he was forced out by US/UK

by gol-dust on

I don't know much about this. Clarification please!

As for DK's postings, it took me more than an hour to review them. Where does he get all the time to research? I'd bet he was a good student, whether we agree with him or not. Thank you for youtubes DK! I enjoyed them, especially Carlin.


well said Anonymouses

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

"That's why it's so important that we as Iranians push for more and more moderate leaders, not because the current situation sucks, but because another revolution will mean another extreme."

well said ... hamvatan



by Anonymoses on

Very well said Davood_Banayan, one extreme approach drove our country into another extreme approach. On the bright side now we have less foriegn intervention on our soil with the chain of monarchy cut we have the prelimenary stages of what can become a democratic framework in Iran. That's why it's so important that we as Iranians push for more and more moderate leaders, not because the current situation sucks, but because another revolution will mean another extreme. 


The Pahlavi dynasty was wrong for Iran

by Davood_Banayan on

Americans for a Democratic Republic in Iran.

1925-1979 were dark years for Iranian history.

Reza Khan, who was installed by Great Britain and trained by Cazrist Russians to be a cossack soldier was a village idot who ended up siding with the Nazis.  In 1941, Reza Khan, the village idiot from Savad Kuh, Mazandaran was removed from power.

In 1941, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed by the British and the United States.  In 1953, after a great uprising, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled Iran to Rome, Italy.  

Mohammad Mossadegh then became the temporary ruler of Iran.

In 1953, with the help of the CIA and MI6, elected Prime Minister Mossadegh was removed and the puppet Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was forced to return to Iran as Shah.

The CIA, MI6, and Mossad helped create the SAVAK, the Shah's secret police.

SAVAK tried to keep the Shah in power by torturing millions of innocent Iranians.

On January 16, 1979, Iranians had enough and ran the Shah out of Iran.  The Shah eventually died of Cancer in Egypt in 1980.  

A lot of Iranians were dancing in the streets when news of the Shah's death became known in the news.

And that is where it ends.

A 2 person dynasty that was despised by many.  

Even General Huyser, in his book about Iran, wrote that the Shah's SAVAK practiced torture.  General Huyser was a 4 starred General who went to Iran in 1979 to help save the Shah's throne.

Let us thank God that in 1979 Iranians abolished the monarchy for good.

Let us hope and pray for a democratic republic in Iran.


God bless them

by caramel on

They were true patriots.
The only mistake they ever did was that they revived the Iranian culture instead of the shiism martyrdom!




no way...

by Anonymoses on

Take pride in an man and his son who sold our country and took it to the brink of no return?

If anyone remembers the history of the song Ey Iran "In 1944, after witnessing an ugly incident where an American soldier serving on the Persian Corridor beat up a native Iranian greengrocer, Gol-e-Golab composed the poem Ey Iran, which was set to music by Rouhollah Khaleghi and soon be came a de facto Iranian national anthem."

These people sold our country out and were personally responsible for setting the stage for a revolution that took the lives of thousands of young iranians

so hell no.

The only person that ever progressive and truly cared about this country was Mossadegh. 

hamsade ghadimi


by hamsade ghadimi on

i like to know what your definition of diminutive is?  the definition that i know of is excessively small.  neither the actor nor reza shah seem to fit that defintion.  i thought it was good casting. the content of the film will obviously be the regime's propaganda.  nothing has changed in that respect.


Can't wait to see it ALL!

by Jaleho on

The historical series in Iran TV are fantastic! I loved "Keef Englisi," this one seems to be of the same genre.

Thanks Mehrdad for another good post!



by Anonymous on

Sassan – I agree with you that there were many other forces that caused the Iranian revolution including foreign power, oil power, and corruption. For the purpose of my note, I was trying to stay with my thoughts about Reza Shah and Arya Mehr as an individual. But I am still holding my ground on Arya Mehr huge miscalculation.

In a civilized world, as you know, we can respectfully agree to disagree. Thank you again for your comments on my post.


Ahmad Shah

by Sassan (not verified) on

The pathetic IRI propaganda machine scripted this diminiutive "Reza Shah" (who was 6 foot 3 inches tall) to say that Ahmad Shah left Iran "with honor."

Are you kidding me?!

Is this supposed to be a joke on the Iranian people or a joke on the truth or simple historical revisionism??? Ahmad Shah was a monumental disgrace, period! He spent more time in Europe having fun than he did in Iran!!! Like so many other Qajar kings, he was a self-serving, unpatriotic coward with little interest in Iran and even less courage!

In 1921, Reza Khan sent Ahmad Shah several letters in Europe, asking him to come back to Iran, but he never did because he was such a corrupt coward! So, finally, at the insistence of mullah Modaress, Reza Shah declared himself Shahanshah!

This movie is such an utterly pathetic display of historical revisionism, exactly the sort of cheesy propaganda the mullahs and the IRI are very good at, bullcrap!

Farah Rusta

If ....

by Farah Rusta on

they had the guts to show how the Mullahs and their leader in Majles,  Modarres, voted to keep the Monarchy when Reza Khan, offered to change the ruling system to a Republic with a President elected every four years? The mullahs preferred to have a monarchical system and not a republican one as they could control the monarch better than a four-yearly changing president.  They only agreed with a republican system when they had the full power in hand in 1979.