RESPONSE

Cause Shapour Bakhtiar was a Shahollahi ?

Bakhtiar explains why he wishes to Restore the Monarchy in it's Genuine Constitutional Form. (Newsweek July 30th 1984):

Bakhtiar explains why he wants to overthrow Khomeiny and Restore the Monarchy

Bakhtiar calls for REGIME CHANGE based on the RESTORATION of the 1906 Constitution ( last public appearance in Hambourg two years prior to his assassination by IRI thugs)

Deev says "perhaps maybe even helping their own people"

"Yet apparently they were not very proud, if they were they'd be living amongst us and perhaps maybe even helping their own people, but two suicides in one family hardly portrays pride"

Yasmin’s Mission for the Children of Iran by DK

By the way how do you conciliate your own contradictions ? A Royal Emblem for an Avatar ? ... 

By the way it is that Hot up there ?  ;0) 

Rowan Atkinson in Hell - WITH SUBTITLES 

Great Response Sohrab_Ferdows

Well Argued !

Proud to be Pahlavi? not so much!

"If I were a Pahlavi, I would be proud to see my legacy"

Yet apparently they were not very proud, if they were they'd be living amongst us and perhaps maybe even helping their own people, but two suicides in one family hardly portrays pride!

Mr. Atabai gets paid for his services so it's only natural for him defend his source of income, let him enjoy it.

What hurts the Pahlavi family worst

All those who hate Pahlavis, yet their humanity broke through when they heard of Prince Alireza's death, need to consider one more thing:  what must hurt Pahlavi family the most these days, and what has driven two of them to despair so far, is probably the hatred spewed at each and every one of them, unjustly, at almost every turn, for decades, by friend and foe alike.  I can imagine how they would be frustrated and disheartened by the vitriol sometimes. 

 
Yet, if you picture life in Iran during three eras: Qajar, Pahlavi and Khomeini, if you actually put images of these eras next to each other, you will see amazing transformations.  If I were a Pahlavi, I would be proud to see my legacy book-ended by the other two.  Let history be the judge.  Pahlavis have nothing to be ashamed of in the eyes of our history and Iran. I am proud of them. As Shahbanou always says, "light will eventually prevail over darkness."  

perfectly written and

very balanced....

 I would go as far as saying kinzer is a paid stooge of the mullahs ! 

Blaming Jenna and Barbara Bush is one thing ...

dancing on their graves is unconscionable 

Let's Make It Two Or Even Three!

Let's launch a class action suit against the "Zionist Entity," too! Let's force her to go back to her pre-'47 borders. Because if it's before '67, it means recognizing the state of Israel and we don't want that, do we? It looks like IR is all talk and no action. 32 years in power and Jerusalem has not been liberated. Or maybe even three. One more against IR officials to find out what has happened to the US $420 billion in oil revenues in the past six years!!! I'm really excited, now. It's gonna be looooooooots of fun!

says he was "blameless" in

pas-e-Pardeh:

says he was "blameless" in Pahlavi histories.  He left Iran when he was 13, and kept an extremely low profile for the rest of his life.  How then was he a public figure? just by his last name?  

No logic.  No sympathy.  Pretty low, Mr. Kinzer

Couldn't agree more. It's like blaming Jenna and Barbara Bush, Former president Bush's daughters for his adminstration atrocities pepetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. His mendacity toward a dead person whom he did not know is almost ghoulish.

 I'm appalled.

DO IT comrade!

 
DO IT!  Start the suit, if you mean what you say.  Let you, Mr. Kinzer, and all who still accuse the Pahlavis prove your case in a forum where you can be talked back to!  DO IT! 

 
All the accusations against Pahlavis are still hearsay after all these years.  I dare you, or IRI, to show evidence of their vast corruption, their stealing people's money, their torturing & murdering Iranians by the thousands, etc.  IRI took over the country with all the records and paper trails.  If they had any evidence, they would have gladly shared with the world.  Where is it? 

"My heart goes out in in true anguish to the Pahlavi family"

 
If Mr. Kinzer felt such sympathy for Pahlavis, why did he try to tear the hearts out of them within 48 hours of the Prince's suicide?  True anguish or fake sympathy? 

 
How did the late prince's "background made him a public figure"?  Mr. Kinzer says he was "blameless" in Pahlavi histories.  He left Iran when he was 13, and kept an extremely low profile for the rest of his life.  How then was he a public figure? just by his last name?  

No logic.  No sympathy.  Pretty low, Mr. Kinzer. 

Legally speaking

I'd like to see the  launching of a class action law suit against the Pahlavis whose corruption, criminal activities, and overall mismanagement resulted in the abolishment of our centuries-old monarchist system.  

Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

I'm with...

... Mammad, Steven Kinzer, Deev, Masoud Kazemzadeh and whoever else pointed to the fact that the Shah was a dictator, as I see this place has once again become home to partially to completely delusional Shahollahis.

You guys should get a life --a real one-- it's not by repeating the same things over and over again that you'll make them true! The only people you're fooling are yourselves, nobody really believes what you all claim. If they look at you and don't say anything, it doesn't mean they believe you, it means they just don't want to tell you what they think! Face it, your version of history is plain fabricated, and so badly too! Deal with it.

We're saying this (or at least I am) for your own good, you only make yourselves look stupid. Okay, you make the rest of us Iranians look stupid and backward too --at least to the eyes of some-- but really, your mental health is in jeopardy, people. Stop it, for your own sanity at least, if there's something left of it. Don't be sore losers all your lives; accept your loss, analyze it fairly, draw the consequences, and get on with it. That's if you can!

You people make me ashamed of being Iranian. Really.

Az ma goftan.

Some words about Mr. Kinzer's response

It is really amazing to see that someone who wishes to portray himself as an expert in the political affairs of another nation during 1950's can make such judgments based on a single fishy document from fishy sources. One may ask what makes you an expert to decide who among Iranians is/was a democrat and who is/was not? what is the basis of your information other than that fabricated and fraudulent document which has been sold as a real story by the paper that you work for? Is this what you have been told by some of your Iranian friends who admire you for publishing their favorable story? You don't seem to have much information neither about Shah nor Mosadegh and that makes one wonder why such person with such poor knowledge about a subject can come up with such assertive positions and statements? I understand that you work for a paper which its association with Democratic party of United States (in an internal battle over power) is more than obvious and anything that promotes your so called democratic agenda among Iranian community in USA is a legitimate thing to do from that view point but, please don't pretend that you are writing history or doing a favor to democratic movements of other people. As you mentioned, anyone is entitled to his or her view of each man's legacy but that is only one person's view and nothing more.

You wrote: "The crimes of this current regime, however, have the opposite effect on some people; they detest the Shah more than ever because they blame him for creating the conditions in which such a regime could come to power." and my question would be: since when opinions of "some people" reflect what a society thinks as a whole? Who were those "some people" and how many of them have you met? And then you admit that "Weighing the reputations of historical figures is a complex and subtle challenge." right after you pass your judgment based on "some people" as you claimed? How realistic are these views? Not much further down you come up with another amazing statement about late Prince Alireza Pahlavi that "His background made him a figure of public interest, .." and by claiming that "the prince was entirely blameless for any of his family's misdeeds" make it clear that you felt appropriate to target the death of Prince Alireza Pahlavi as a legitimate subject to fill your column with some opinionated materials about someone whom you did not even know just because, in your view, his family had some "misdeeds"! No wonder if American people are getting more disappointed in their mainstream media everyday and prefer alternative sources (even Aljazeera or some unknown web based publishing will do).

The statement that "The fact that the Pahlavi family was so deeply intertwined with the United States for so long makes it especially fascinating to Americans." is a clear indication of lack of information or intentional spreading of misinformation by the author. There is an ample amount of evidences in recently declassified documents of US government to indicate that the opposite of that statement is true. US government had a lot of concerns about relations between Iranian government with former Soviet Union during 1960's and 1970's which are reflected in their communication documents between American Embassy, State Department, CIA and White House. US government refused selling AWAX system to Iran during 1970's and with the excuse that the debate in US Senate on that matter had not been concluded yet. This matter was dragged until late Shah informed US Ambassador that he was no longer interested in buying AWAX systems from USA and would go to other sources. It was just then that US government agreed to sell those systems to Iran which of course, was never delivered. The examples of this sort in relations between Iranian government during late Shah and the US administrations are plenty. Refusal of buying oil directly from Iran in exchange for American goods is another one which would serve the big oil corporations rather than US tax payers. Iran did not receive a penny from US government since early 1960's and had no obligation to follow their agenda and advice on any issue. That in fact was the most important source of bitterness and disappointment of all American administrations (Dems and Reps alike) towards late Shah.

America's sins have nothing to do with Iran, Shah or any other Iranian. American sins come from those who try to put their nose in the business of others through trickery and deception under guise of promoting democracy while spreading false information. I do not trust you sir! You are an American and whatever agenda you might have is definitely far from being holy. I never trust and believe an American who put himself among revolutionaries of another nation as a "freelance journalist", at the age of 25-26, and give advice to those revolutionaries just for the sake promoting democracy. that is too much of fantasy for me.

Fantastic Response Mr. Kinzer

I greatly appreciate your polite, factual, to the point response.

Yes, the monarchists and royalists forget that it was the Shah and his father who created the dark dictatorship that led to the 1979 revolution.

It was Reza Shah who - despite many good things that he did for the infrastructure of Iran - destroyed the great Constitutional Revolution only about a decade after it got rid of Mohammad Ali Shah in 1911, the very revolution that had founded the first constittutonal government in entire Asia.

And, it was Mohammad Reza Shah who - in addition to his illegitimacy due to the CIA-MI6 coup - eliminated the secular nationalists, the nationalist-religious groups like Liberation Movement, the secular leftists and all other elements of the legitimate opposition, founded the neo-fascist Rastakhiz Party and declared that, "Whoever does not like this will either be in jail or can get his passport and leave Iran," precisely the same as what the religious fascist Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi has said.

There is no doubt that, in many respects, the crimes of the IRI far exceed anything that the Pahlavis ever did. However, the crimes of one regime - the IRI - do not wash those of another - the Pahlavis. It is the monarchists and royalists who need to learn history as it happened, not the way they pretend it to be. When monarchists and royalists tell people to "learn" history, they mean to "learn" their distorted version of history.

Mammad

Relative of Shapour Bakhtiar attempts Suicide in Paris

Between Life and Death:

امیر رضا امیر بختیار جوان مبارز، در پاریس اقدام به خودکشی نمود.

This was a really good Article and classy response. Well Done!

Its a pity this "Response Article" is placed as the 3rd article down on the front page, when it would get far more clicks and views if it were in 1st place.  It is the article of the day after all.  Just thinking from a stand point of relevance.

Despite this it has still gotten as many comments and interest as the first two articles combined almost.

Lets work on placement. please.

Kinzer

Great response especially your point that Mossadeq was far from the democrat most people believe he was. Kinzer prefers to use myths over historial fact

Kinzer End Your Libel on Pahlavi Monarchy and its supporters

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Kinzer's article in  the Guardian about Human rights where he calls an end to Human Rights Imperialism

:
//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica...

On Human Rights:  "Founded by idealists who wanted to make the world a better place, it has in recent years become the vanguard of a new form of imperialism.
Want to depose the government of a poor country with resources? Want to bash Muslims? Want to build support for [British]-American military interventions around the world? Want to undermine governments that are raising their people up from poverty because they don't conform to the tastes of upper west side intellectuals? Use human rights as your excuse!
This has become the unspoken mantra of a movement that has lost its way.

Human Rights Watch is hardly the only offender. There are a host of others, ranging from Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders to the Carr Centre for Human Rights at Harvard and the pitifully misled "anti-genocide" movement.

All promote an absolutist view of human rights permeated by modern western ideas that westerners mistakenly call "universal". In some cases, their work, far from saving lives, actually causes more death, more repression, more brutality and an absolute weakening of human rights."

If so, why is Mr. Kinzer still slandering and blood libeling the King of Iran, Mohmmad Reza  Pahlavi who was a victim of British-American Imperialists? 

What is this double speak all about?

All Ahmadinejad's Men ;0)

EMINENT PERSIANS: Iranologist Richard Frye at Reza Shah's mausoleum (1970's)
 
Frye was amongst the rare foreign public figures ( amongst which George Galloway ) invited by controversial President Ahmadinejad at a gathering in Iran of Iranian Expats in what appears to be an endorsement of his policies. Whether or Not Frye himself approves the Iranian president's domestic or foreign policies is not clear.

SOS You mean Kinzer won't lecture IRI on HR but lectures Egypt?

You mean Kinzer won't lecture IRI on Human Rights but lectures Egypt ? 

Mubarak Won't Run Again by Stephen Kinzer (Newsweek)

LOL 

Well Hope at least Kinzer enjoyed his dinner with Ahmadinejad

My Dinner with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - The Daily Beast by Stephen Kinzer

Did he also participate to the one given in Tehran for Iranian Expats some of whom were and still are active members of CASMII ?

Back From Iran by Stephen Kinzer (15-Jul-2010 )

I wonder ...

CASMII Columnist Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich amongst Expat Guests of Ahmadinejad ?

List of Iranian Expats who attended President Ahmadinejad honorary Dinner in Tehran

By the way does anyone know if Kinzer is a member or just a columnist on CASMII ? Here is his profile on CASMII website

But well I guess Unlike Soraya Ulrich and other's at CASMII, Kinzer as a Non Iranian Researcher is not accountable to Iranians on who he meets and why ...

But then might as well not lecture us monarchists on what is treachery and what is patriotism ...

Cause Quite Frankly He Ain't Qualified !

Kinzer is a hypocrite

//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica...

Mr. Kinzer and his cronies are hypocrites. Now they are calling for human rights groups to stop their investigation into the crimes of the Brutal Barbaric Islamic regimes.

The Pahlavi Kings are the best things after the Backward Colonial Rule of Qajars because The Pahlavi Kings of Iran brought peace and prosperity for Iran and the region.

Mr. Kinzer, who are you fooling?

Shah has been symbol of Unity, Integrity and Strength of nation

Mr. Kinzer, I forgot to add that shah in Iran history has been symbol of unity, integrity and strength of our nation. We carry over 5000 years of monarchy on our shoulders whenever we walk on streets of U.S or European cities. Monarchy has been intimated with Iran history. Our goal is re-establishing monarchy once again, as it was the wish of our ancestors for thousand years.

regards,

Siavash

coroner's report, please

 Coroner's report, police pathology report, please.

Enough of this ongoing girly gossip gibberish. Facts, that's what I'd like. Clear facts without all this ridiculous circus of mixing up issues. 

"If they chew you up, they still have to spit you out "

Stephen Kinzer, well said

"[people] detest the Shah more than ever because they blame him for creating the conditions in which such a regime could come to power"

Yes, as much as Reza Shah was courageous and determined Shah was wishy washy and passive aggressive which lead to his demise and our misery, and now Reza and Alireza too proved themselves to be complete wimps so it's a sad end to a historical chapter.

Mr. Kinzer and distortion of Iran history

"All shah's men" created false image of Dr. Mosaddeq. Weight has been given to Mosaddeq and his party national front during 1953. According to central committee of Tudeh party 2/3of demonstrators after Feb. 1952 and oil nationalization were pro-Tudeh than national front. There were rapid influence of Soviet Union through Tudeh party in Iran. In 256 pages of "All shah's men"  nothing has been said regarding the role Tudeh party played in those days. Further on, the book goes and gives full description of Boulvard by the name of Dr. Fatimi in Tehran, but it fails to say anyting regarding top political military officers such as Khosrow Rozbeh or colonel Siamack Mobasheri. The role of our great nation in wanting shah return to the crown has been minimized. Instead, all credit has been given to a bunch of the street lampoons who were paid by C.I.A. Lampoons never created Iran history, Iranian people did. In all, I can say the lampoons had minimum impact on Iran history. The main structure of our society and mass of our people were pro-shah and I can assure you even if U.S didn't interven, the pro-shah people would have been in upper hand position over pro-Mosaddeq and Tudeh party members. Shahanshahi has been intimated with Iran's history for over 5000 years of our civilalization. I am proud to say that my ancestors introduced "Monarchy" (shahanshahi) as the first political form to the history of mankind. There is an expression in Fari that we say: " Unwritten composition doesn't have error". Mosaddeq was disposed and we never saw the other side of history if shah wouldn't return, but we can hypothesized with strong military forces of Tudeh party what direction Iran would have been headed. Something you never could possiblity guess when you're saying 9/11 would taken placed if U.S would financed operation Ajax. This false assumption was reinforced by left wing American media such as N.P.R. The cultural differences between Iranian society and Brits or western culture has been ignored. Instead the book gives impression that Iranians were being discriminated by Brits in those days in Abadan.

In summury, your book says what rulling mullahs in Iran wants to hear it in these days.

     Mark Gasiorowski and Diane Goldsmith books gives better account of event in 1953. Gasirowski did indepth research about the event leading shah return to crown in 1953. He had all access to presidential files from those days. I strongly suggest you to read their books.

Regards,

Siavash 

HG

I get you my friend. I know how you feel.

And about that Class action deal. I think JJ should be doing some major pre-spring khane takani. onam che takani! that was absolutely ludicrous.

No joshing or jonsing nor even any jesting bro.  What i am saying is COme on craker, Show them how it is done. let  Them taste the  sugar:)

Alternative Views To Mr. Kinzer's conclusions on '53& Reza Shah

From a Constitutionalist perspective and Not Jomhuryhkhah (aka Republican -not the Party per se - but the ideology) one:

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?

Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?

PRAISE FOR REZA SHAH: Adjoudani Slams Lack of Recognition for Pahlavi Dynasty's Founder

Best,

DK

Other Related Blogs:

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

Mehdi Bazargan and the controversial legacy of Iran's Islamic intellectual movement

CLUELESS JON STEWART: "Ebrahim Yazdi Such a Lovely Man"

SOURCES OF FURY:Nader Naderpour on origins of IRI's "Death Slogans" towards US and Israel

HISTORY FORUM: Nader Naderpour on Iran's Constitutional Revolution and European Rennaissance (1996)      

d.m., i think i made such

d.m., i think i made such comment about a t. parsi article before.  when you submit an official response or statement from an organization, you need to be careful with the words, grammar, context, ... this is your reputation on the line.  it's not writing a comment or an email to a friend.  these cheapskates think "well, i have a degree.  i have written dissertations, etc.  what's an editor going to do for me?"  this "article" (i prefer to call it a letter) opens and closes with the same statement that "he was sorry" and "he is sorry".  and i don't think he meant that on either occasion.  and those poor choices are the least of his worries in this letter.

i'm not a mola loghati when it comes to a regular article or blog.  but i can't help myself pointing it out when it comes to official statement from an organization or titled person.  to top it off, you hear all the chah chah and bah bah from some people advising the writer to take class-action lawsuit!!!!!  i know you're jesting, but i've got enough on my plate to be an unpaid editor.