Persian Realm

In response to David ET's Blog here are my answers to your questions and my assessment of your propositions (as suggested in that blog not elsewhere in subsequent threads). This is not aimed at as an aggressive Note but as an opiniated intellectual discourse and clarifying where I stand as a Constitutionalist Monarchist. I am not speaking on behalf of Crown Prince Reza's own Point of view which may differ. But since David Submitted his questions to me or my likeminds this is my response and assessments in this debate.

It appears to me that David is not asking questions but simply submitting an Ultimatum to Monarchists which can be summed in One Sentence:

Give Up Your Convictions for the Sake of Unity and Ask Your Leader to give up his Claim to the Throne !

That is Not what I call extending an Olive Branch to those who oppose your views but asking them to convert to yours.

All the Questions you have submitted are biased to start with and aimed not at an Open Dialogue but at Excluding anyone who does not subscribe to your Republican mindset to begin with.

The very purpose of Unity is aimed at gathering people of diverse Opinions and Ideologies under one umbrella in order to find common ground in order to achieve a given goal.

In our case Regime Change (or Toppling the current Regime).

You can call such an attempt whatever you want like Setting the Nation Free to satisfy the masses but the core of such unity is not aimed at converting one another to one another’s ideological preferences.

So If you are asking me if I would accept to see Crown Prince Reza Give Up his right to the throne of Iran and Monarchists to give up their ideals in the name of Unity ? The Answer is a Straight No !

If the Pre- Requisite for Unity is to accept the principles of Democracy and Human Rights ? Then You Already Have that Answer it is an Unconditional YES.

If the Pre- Requisite for Unity is to ask Our Crown Prince to Renounce all together to his claim to the Peacock Throne before that question is openly and Fairly Submitted to the Choice of the People ? The Answer Again is an Unconditional NO !

If the Pre-Requisite for Unity is to demand Us Not to Consider Our Crown Prince as our future King and Not to call him according to those Titles and thus renounce to Our own Hopes and aspiration to the government of our Choice within a democratic process ? Again the Answer will be an Unconditional NO !

We are Not Asking Nor demanding You to consider him as YOUR King or that You subscribe to the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy. We are Simply Saying we will Not sit at the Table of Negotiations if You adresse him as Anything else than Crown Prince !

He is Not an Ordinary Citizen, but a Representative of a Constituency ( and therefore potential voters) Not by Choice nor because he is wiser or more intelligent than anyone of us united but simply because he has inherited a name and title whose political significance escapes no one and which is linked to his family’s historical role in our nation.

In otherwords if he sits at the table of negotiations he will sit as first and foremost a Representative of His Constituency ( composed to his own admission and certainly verifiable by Essentially monarchists but also Secular Republicans and Constitutionalists).

In the same way we cannot Speak on behalf of the Republican movement even if he has followers amongst them no more than the Jomhury Khahs or Mossadeghis or leftwing groups can speak on behalf of the Monarchists ( Constitutionalists or Absolutists).

Thus I would see no contradiction to see the same reverence expressed towards a Qajar Prince who would wish to sit at the table of negotiations next or opposite Crown Prince Reza whether that person wishes to restore the Qajars or whether he or she wishes to run for President or Prime Miniter of the Future Republic or constitutional Monarchy or simply wants to play and active political role in a future government or parliament.

As to acknowledging his Legitimacy as King and expect people to address him as King or “Reza Shah Dovom” that indeed does not depend on us to impose that title on anyone given that he is Not King but Simply “Roi de Jure” only to his supporters eversince he took Oath in 1980 at Cairo’s Koubeh Palace shortly after his father’s death and upon his 20Th Birthday as the 1906 Constitution prior to the Monarchy’s fall demanded it.

pictory: Reza Pahlavi Takes Oath as Roi de Jure Cairo 1980

So beyond the ceremonial acknowledgment and his Royal pledge to his constituency and beyond that to his people, his Title as King cannot take effect legitimately as long as he is in exile and has not taken an Official Oath in Front of an Elected Parliament.

That is not bound to happen anytime soon given that the Nation has not yet been consulted democratically and directly on the nature of the democratic system of government it wishes to establish in the land. And Secondly if the People Choose Not to Restore the Monarchy but merely a Republic, Reza Pahlavi will Only claim the By then Obsolete Title of Crown Prince in a Land which has definitively become a Republic because of it’s new drafted and popularly ratified Constitution.

The King of Greece has both a diplomatic passport and a Greek Passport both of which contain his title of King Constantine of Greece. He actually sued the Greek government for refusing to consider him under that title and submitted his case to the European Human Rights Commission and won his case:

//iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/restoration-greek-constitutional-monarchy-toppled-military-coup-april-21st-1967

In addition After all , let’s say that even if we lose in the Referandum tomorrow. Nothing should stop us as Monarchist from taking part in the Nations political scene while respecting the democratic process and campaign for the Restoration of the Monarchy in our country or submit deputies to the Republican parliment.

The same would be True for You Republicans if we were to win the Referandum and see the establishment of a Truly Constitutional Monarchy in Iran like is the case in Spain or Great Britain.

France and Great Britain respectively have Royalist and Republican parties ( however marginal) and are LEGAL.

See Republic Party of Great Britain critically harsh portrait of Prince Charles:

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)

So If you are asking me as a monarchist if I would accept to see Crown Prince Reza Give Up his right to the throne of Iran and ask Monarchists to give up their ideals in the name of Unity ?

The Answer is a Straight No !

The Reason is simple and as legitimate as Your own reasons to defend Your Republican Constitution.

We won’t be able agree on the System of Government of our choice. All we can do is submit THAT choice to the sanctity of the Ballot Box and the Choice of the Nation once the Regime is toppled.

And that has been the very purpose of suggesting a Referandum in the first place.

That in itself was a concession made by Our King to YOU Anti Monarchists in the first place and to the dismay of the most staunchest die hard monarchists of our own constituency. But You continue to refuse that Olive Branch on grounds that YOU don’t Even Want to see the People have that Free Choice of choosing which system of government they wish to have.

So Your Questions are Not Genuine Questions to begin with but Politically Motivated ones aimed at comforting your own long term political strategy of eliminating anything that could come in between Your Ideals of a System of Government of YOUR Choice ( i.e: a Republic) and the Free Choice of the People to choose between the ones submitted to them in a Free Election.

What You don't Understand David Jaan is the Very Concept of the Monarchy ( or of Nation Building for that matter) which you wish to simplistically boil down to Frivolous ceremonies aimed at celebrating Petty Coat Puppets and spoiled characters of your imagination.

Besides You are confusing Three Separate Concepts: That of Democracy, That of Creating an Oppostion to Achieve it and lastly that of Nation Building.

No need to explain to you that Nations Need Symbols.

That official Ceremonies and National Symbols ARE a Important to any Nation’s COLLECTIVE Self Respect and dignity as much as it’s Democratic Institutions are important to our INDIVIDUAL needs and Self Respect.

Otherwise Why would the French President live in Elysee Palace or hold a Garden Party for a priveledged Few every 14Th of July ?

Why Does’t he do like the British Prime Minister whose offices are in a small insignificant steet at 10 Downing Steet in London ?

The President’s Grand Collier of Legion D’Honneur, the State dinners held for Foreign dignitaries to which NO ONE else than diplomats or selected guests like movie stars or celebrities are conveyed to these expensive dinners and all that with the tax payers money.

Symbols and ceremonies confer to the Statesmen and their representatives the prestige of the Function in bid to highlighting the dignity of the office they hold or represent. It's not because You voted for the President that you can go and Touch his Suite or walk around at Elysee Palace at your ease or got and touch his medals during the ceremony of Inauguration?

This is valid for Constitutional Kings or President in Federal Republics like Germany or Italy who have absolutely No other function than a ceremonial one.

Now Buckingham and Elysee both offer tourist guides and there are what they call Journee du Patrimoine in France where one can even be guided through the Elysee Palace and ministeries by the President and First lady and in some countries like Denmark where the Royal family is nearly considered as a family member who makes you visit the palace or ministers make you visit the chambers or offices.

Other than that Even when you elect your representatives be it President or Prime Minister, You are Not going to be invited to State Dinners are You ? Maybe you can with your local mayor but not at such high levels of responsability and power. And it's not just a question of security but dignity the office requires in order to be respected.

You can However complain to the Press or through the Parliment on State or Expenses be it in Monarchies or Republics and demand accountability ...

Royals 'cost the taxpayer £37.4m' (bbc)

French Presidential Dinner at Mediteranian Summit cost 7.000 et 7.500 euros (Nouvel Observateur)

But you still won't necessarily be invited at that State Dinner as an ordinary citizen even if you asked that through official channels unless you cheat your way in against Security knowledge:

White House state dinner party crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi are no strangers to trouble (Daily News)

When a Prime Minister or President is elected there is a short period of a 100 days that in France is called “L’Etat de Grace” and a Political “Honey Moon” in England or America during which the parliment, the different political parties, the Unionists and public representatives and even the press have to respect the new President’s New Stature so that the nation gets used to the new political status quo resulting from the elections.

The "Monarchy" No more than the concept of "Nation" , “State” or "Flag" or Even “Patriotism” are Democratic entities or the Fruite of Democratic principles. They are man made elitist concepts that were created or invented at a given time by a collective effort of a group of people in order to distinguish themselves as a community from the rest of Humanity.

Call it Racist, class Oriented if you will ... but Nations and have been indeed built on a purely "Racist", “Ego Centric” Concept from the dawn of humanity which even despite all the brotherly love that Religions( Christinanity, Islam, Judaism, Budhaism, Zoroastrianism etc ... ) or Humanistic philosophies have transmitted to us down the centuries aimed at refining our concept of mankind and defined what we consider as "civilizations" have not abolished the very notion of Nations for that matter. Be them Republics like France or Monarchies like Great Britain or Federal Republics like the United States all of whom are Democratic systems of governments they ALL without Exception Hold their Nation, system of government and Flag as "Sacred" not on grounds of democratic coexistance but on grounds of Peaceful Coexistance as opposed to Anarchy.

In otherwords it is impossible to sustain and maintain even the most perfect and democratic system of government if the people who compose that nation do not hold certain institutions as "sacred" un negotiatable despite Social, generational and cultural transformations that are common to all societies regardless of their systems of government.

The Alternative to this I grant you Very "Racist", "Ego Centric", "Class Oriented" and "prejudicial" concept we call a "Nation" and which defines a civilization and it’s people's collective identification (endorsed by your Passport for instance) is ... Anarchy.

That is why the Concept of Nation and Nationality cannot be dismissed only because it appears unjust or wrong from a given individual and individualistic perspective as if we lived in an ideal world where no competition between races, people etc did not exist.

After WWII Western Europe with the European community and with the help of america created the European community which has tried to overcome cultural, economic and linguistic differences despite the diversity of the systems of governments but apart from the free circulation of good and obvious efforts to enforce the European Identity over the various national identities, a German remains a German, A French a French a British a British ( and a bad European for that matter since they don't belong to the Eurozone) and a Greek a Greek. They all are first loyal to their own interests and systems of government because reaching brotherly love and understanding on paper is good but to get there it is easier said than done when faced with economic and political realities.

This has Nothing to do with the Moral Virtues of Democracy as the fact that they are not only a commendable idea of social coexistance that guarantees a people's happiness, and the individual freedoms to which every man, women or child should be entitled to regardless of his social status, race or religion.

You Cannot therefore Refute the following Blunt Observation common to ALL NATION's and People regardless of their systems of government and that is that:

A Democracy Ceases to Exist if a Nation ceases to exist. However A Nation Can Very Well continue to Exist without Democracy.

THAT is NOT to Say it is a GOOD or IDEAL Thing But that It IS A SAD FACT !

Democracy is simply One of many Ingredients that define a nation’s social life the other being civil peace which Only a ruling government ( headed by a Prime Minister or President) can guarantee both of which are essential to a Nation's well being.

Democracy has to comply to that Reality without Being merely an Instrument of that Reality (The State) which in itself is not an entirely democratic concept nor satisfying by nature. But democracy is there to serve the People and Not the State who otherwise could carry out any decision by overlooking public opinion.

Unlike Voltaire or Montesquieu some elightment philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that man would be perfectly happy without rules and by returning to live in the Forest. That rules and Laws could be overlooked in a LA LA LAND of his imagination.

That a Truly Free Man was one who had No accountability. However Democracy is Precisely About Accountability ( Which YOUR Republican Friends Refuse to acknowledge for Yourselves but demand that from others) and Responsability. It is about checks and Balances.

The King or Queen’s Crown and Jewels do NOT belong to Them but to the State and Nation as a Whole, except that he souly is entitled to using them because the nation has accepted this compromise (which I can fully understand is something that can be refuted philisophically if one is a staunch republican who does not subscribe to such a concession).

The Crown Jewels Actually help define a countries currency and The King or Queen don’t nor can go around with the Crown on their head while playing Tennis with their Kids in the Palace gardens.

All the Crown Jewels and ceremonial objects (like the Sceptre, Sword etc ) be them in England, Belgium, Sweden or under the Last Shah in Iran were or are kept in Treasure Vaults or Museums and they can only be retrieved in exchange of the direct signature of the King, Queen, Prince or Princess after the approval of the head of the Bank and often with the Prime Minister or governmental official’s full knowledge and endorsement. This was particularly True for The Last Shah who established the same procedure as in all modern Monarchies and which was Not the case under the Qajar Rulers where one could see them or even their kids or cousins hang around Golestan nearly picnicing inside the palace and sitting on the Peacock Throne as if were some kind of personal belonging.

What You fail to understand when you criticize the Monarchy is that you think that they are unique in inventing uniforms, Outfits and ceremonies or that they are merely to Show off !

Ceremonies and Outfits which you want to dismiss so easily are essential attributes of Power even in Republics:

Republic VS Monarchy In Style ...

Depending on a given generation, culture or country they have become more or less sober:

De Gaulle (1960’s) and

Sarkozy (2007)

In Spain other than when Reviewing the Army or Opening the Parliament Juan Carlos is even More Sober than Some of Your Republican Representatives:

King Juan Carlos Greets Lybian President Mumar Ghaddafi (Also See Consternation as Muammar Gaddafi seeks to pitch his tent on Nicolas Sarkozy’s lawn)

Or Our Very Own Joon Joony PreeeeeeeeeZeeeeeeeeeeeDeeeeeeent Khatami Visiting Spain is Greeted Juan Carlos :

//www.iran-resist.org/local/cache-vignettes/L410xH289/Khatami-Juan-airport-2ee93.jpg

OBAMA's ROYAL VISIT: King Juan Carlos of Spain Visits Washington (Note For JJ: This Is Not a News but Blog)

Same thing for our Own Shah who was most of the time in a civil Suite when greeting or visiting Presidents or Foreign Dignitaries:

Shah Welcomes Pope

Shah With Nixon

King Hassan of Jordan, Shah and Shahbanou and Jimmy Carter

And in Uniform ( military ) or Ceremonial Suit when greeting or visiting Kings and Queens as the protocole expects it:

ROYALTY: King Juan Carlos of Spain Greeted by Shahbanou at Sa'ad Abad Palace State Dinner (1978)

pictory: Shah and King Juan Carlos Share a Laugh, Tehran (1975)

Shah greeted by King of Sweden

pictory: Shah and Princess Margaret London 1959

To have democracy it is not enough to write the rules on a piece of paper.

Democratic Stability depends on a Nation's maturity to accept the choice of the Majority and the ability of Politicians to maintain civil peace while carrying out decisions which may not please everyone.

That is why deputies are elected in Parliament to express or voice our concerns to those in Power. This is True be it in a Constitutional Monarchy or in a Republic.

Democracy is a Noble and Essential Concept initially invented ( however imperfectly) by the Greeks 2000 years ago which put Individual at the Center of the Universe and to which we are all indepted too for it corresponds to a Key moment in the history of mankind and Human Civilization in recognizing that it a community could take it’s destiny in it’s own hands.

However In Ancient Greece Not everyone could vote. You had to be a Male to being with which already excluded the other half to even participate in civil life and you had to belong to the Aristocracy.

Athenian City States still had Kings and Queens who ruled them but they consulted a group of enlightened men or Oracles to make their decisions.

The Concept was developed and refined by the Roman Republic ( Actually an Empire) by gathering these enlightened men into what they called the Senate which later became known as the Parliment in all Democratic societies.

As a Matter of Fact the Very concept of "Dictatorship" or "Tyranny" is not the product of the Monarchy But an OFFSPRING of the Republic. Kings Or Queens couldn't care less about public Opinion. They Believed they were Chosen by God not expected to Justify or Question their own Legitimacy. The "Sacred" concept was reinforced particularly in European Medieval Era without interruption until the Rennaissance seriously questioned Absolutism.

The "Dictator" on the Other hand was a pure Product of the Roman Republic and actually elected By the Senate for either a Given time or for Life.

The words "dictator or "Tyrant" were not even considered in a negative light as it is today. They were Elected into assuming that role ( cheating or corrupting senators in the process etc ...) , very much like Adof Hitler was democratically elected.

Julius Caesar was assassinated because people feared he may become King instead of Remaining a Dictator and Accountable to the senate.

HISTORY FORUM: Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar"

Early Societies and "civilizations" like Rome did not care much about social justice or equality not because they were more stupid than us contemporaries but because it did not correspond to a "social Need". Slaves were important to the economic well being of society and if as a Politician you would go in a Public Forum and ask to abolish Slavery you would become a Laughing stock and probably even the slaves ( the very first victims of this injustice) would laugh at you because if you were poor being a slave in a rich household guaranteed you a roof, food and security. Same thing for Gladiators who were considered as "entertainers". How do You explain that this Very notion of a Republic You Hold So sacred was equally responsible for feeding the Christians to the Lions, entertaining the masses in Cruel Gladiator Games and indulged in selling men and women at a young age to slavers and at the same time build Roads and Aquaducts that have lasted the test of time and invented a political system that has been transmitted down the ages and copied by all Parlimentary Democracies as we know them today ?

Human Rights, Equality between the Sexes, Gay or Tansgender rights, Social Security for all, Justice for all regardless of social status, race or religion are Modern Needs which have appeared recently in human history and barely 300 years ago with the ideas of the French Lumieres or Enlightened Philosophers

HISTORY FORUM: The Age of Enlightment in France and Europe.

and put into practive after such events like the French Revolution (1789) or earlier the American Revolution ( 1776, Actually a Colonial War of Independance against British Foreign domination helped in the Process by the French King Louis XVI and his Royalist Generals Like Lafayette so that YOU IRANICANS today can also benefit from the freedoms which at the time King Louis's own French subjects were deprived from). Political Responsability and Particularly Parlimentary Democracy however were first born under Monarchies.

The British Magna Carta ( 1215) or First Bill Of Rights of 1689 was the first Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown were the First succesful Attempts to draft Constitutions aimed at separating Legislative and Executive Powers.

They were Imperfect documents that were improved over time, not always without bloodshed and their share of social upheavels be them civil wars or Revolutions but they led the British Society towards a social compromise between the governing body ( King /Government) and the People's representatives ( the Parliament).

So If you think that a Constitution is Anything but a Hypocritical mutual compromise between those in Power ( who do not want to give it up eagerly once they acquired it be it by force or democratically) and those who are being governed by them then you are not only naive but terribly Foolish to think that it is enough to draft a piece of paper and think you can demand it's realistic implementation without the slightest concession between the two bodies.

>Being Hypocritical at a given juncture in a history of a nation is Not necessarily a Bad Thing. It often avoids further Bloodshed ! ...

That does not mean that the Text or draft in itself is hyprocritical because it takes into account the realities of a nation’s particularities and specificities. For instance some countries prefered to keep their monarchies because it served as a cement which united an ethnically and culturally diverse nation. Belgium is divided in two lingustic entities : Dutch and French.

The Belgian Monarchy took pride in maintaining the nations unity despite this duality. But just to prove that unlike You I am not dogmatic about the Monarchy as you are towards the Republic ... the Belgian Monarchy is facing serious trouble in recent years due to internal crisis between the two communities at odds mainly because of major economical differences between an industrially dominated region which favors the French as opposed to a less economically healthy region inhabited by the dutch speaking population.

The Royal Families Fortune have also been subject to controversy but because Belgium is a Democracy an investigation is underway to evaluate if the Royal Family has been cheating or picking into the State Treasury to finance it’s expenses.

The Queen of England is paying taxes only recently and even The King of Morroco ( which is not entirely a entirely Constitutional Monarchy as we understand it) has also accepted in recent years to behave as a European Constitutional monarch by also paying taxes. And the King of Spain and the Royal Family do the same.

No one in Constitutional Monarchies are above the law and even Princess Ann was forced to go to court and pay a fine for tax evasion and even because her dog once bit another citizen. The Princess of York ( she has kept the title despite being divorced from Royal Prince Andrew) has been working hard as a film producer to pay up for her tax problems and the Law keeps an eye on every penny she earns on her own.

You on the otherhand in Your Distorted Moralistic mindset see EVERYTHING in BLACK OR WHITE !

Good VS Evil !

Did You Travel or Travel the World from time to time or Read how about how other countries achieved democracy or are run other than On YOUR INSULAR AMERICAN ( Or IRANICAN) Continent of US of A or CANADA ? ...

Politics and Political Responsabilities confront the individual in particular and society in general to the Realities of Power Sharing.

You think that the Outcome of Revolutions are Republics! That in itself is a misconception. Great Britain which has given us the Beatles and the Rolling Stones went through several Revolutions and under Cromwell even saw the establishment of a Religious Theocracy Just Like Iran today. They even went Much further than Us since they Put their King Charles Ist on Trial and beheaded him and declared a Republic with Cromwell as Lord Protector (Just Like The Velayateh Fagih) Only to Restore Charles Son on the Throne as Charles II after more than a decade of a Religious Theocratic Republic that was anything but a democracy. That is when Parlimentary Democracy truly took Root in Great Britain and avoided it to go through another one when the French Beheaded Their King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette.

Charles Dickens Tale of the Two Cities is precisely a harsh criticism of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror when in neighbouring Britain, where Freedom and Democracy were operating in Full Force thanks to their Constitution and Parlimentary democracy where the King or Queen WOULD REIGN as Symbols of National Unity and reconciliation BUT NOT RULE .

That is why Constitutions remain imperfect drafts and keep on being amended until a Majority agree on a common final draft. In today's democracies it is NEVER a Definitive Draft and that is why they are improved through amendments in order to satisfy That Majority from Generation to Generation.

In All Revolutions, once victory is achieved what appears on the political scene is a Provisionary Government. It is precisely called a “Provisionary” government because it is aimed at being in power for a more or less short period of time and composed by those who spearheaded the revolution towards victory in order to prepare the conditions for a legitimate government and regime of the people’s choice.

We know by historical experience that in the case of most violent or ideologically motivated revolutions the Provisionary government ends up to either be highjacked by revolutionary radicals as was the case for instance of the Bazargan government ( same was true for the Bolschevik or Chinese Revolutions where Power Hungry politicians like Stalin in Russia or Mao in China took over). In contrast Velvet Revolutions often occur in societies where political maturity of the nation has reached a stage where beyond the existing political or ideological gaps or differences between their representatives in the Political Arena, the people’s top priority is to see that the political transition towards democracy is achieved as peacefully and democratically as possible.

Whether or not such a peaceful transition takes place or not in effect cannot be predicted or pre established in advance. Neither Politics nor the March of History are pre defined concepts that can be viewed as Exact Sciences. If it were it would be so easy and we would have solved all our problems by now.

We saw how Velvet Revolutions occured in Tchekoslovakia or Poland where they were a Success and relatively bloodless and where Vengeance was not carried out as is often the case in countries which experience first time revolutions. But in a country like Rumania we saw how that Velvet Revolution was in fact highjacked by the very establishment it was revolting against. The Way the Cauescescu were executed without a fair trial and the fact that many of those who took over were former Aparatchiks turned “revolutionary” for the circumstance is a sad example of how the legitimate demands of the people were simply manipulated to other means. If the final result which consisted of regime change was achieved and Rumania did finally achieve democracy it was essentially due to the fact that the pseudo leaders of this revolution could not do otherwise than copy the other neighbouring countries ( all former satellite members of the Soviet Bloc) which had drifted away from the communist ideology and re established ties with the Western Democracies of Europe. Otherwise were it not for the specific historical and geographic context of the Velvet Revolutions of the 1990’s , Rumania might as well have chosen a far more radical revolutionary road. Yet of all Eastern Bloc countries the Rumania’s revolutionary experience was a particularly bitter one because it was seen as purely artificial and highjacked by former Aparatchiks of the regime. The stigmas of history remain deeply rooted in Rumania and nationalistic frustrations are seeing the emergence of even neo nazi or other marginal minded parties arise. Even countries where the Velvet Revolution was fairly successful with the establishement of new secular and democratic Republics we can see a rise in Nationalistic sentiments in the populations for instance in Hungary ( which was once a powerful Empire in joint with Austria ( itself also seeing a rise of radical neo nazi political parties and behaviors)).

What I blame David of is not his lack of patriotism, or his genuine belief in a Republic. That is His Right. Unlike him I am not aiming at Converting him. What I blame him of is his pathological Impatience and Political immaturity both a Result of his ignorance of History and of Political realities of the nation we both equally love and cherish.

He thinks that Revolutions naturally lead to Republics mainly because Republics are Virtuous and Monarchies are Not !

He also wrongly Thinks that Democracy and Democratic thought is rooted uniquely in Republicanism.

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

On both accounts his claims are historically Wrong

otherwise on an Old Continent like Europe you would not have such a long list of nations which live under Constitutional Monarchies and some such as Sweden , Denmark or Holland being at the forefront of Social progress and even spearheaded liberalism and where “Left Wing” policies are often dictating the nation’s political orientation.

Instead of Reasoning as a General be it a Great Republican like George Washington he reasons like a Foot Soldier of Democracy. Thinking that it is enough to shout and scream his head off that Democracy is good and lecturing from a “moralistic” stand point about the virtues of democracy and political leadership when the major Priority is Not Drafting a democratic Constitution but REGIME CHANGE.

Politics is first and foremost about conquering Power and holding on to it ( Read Machiaveli's Prince if needed). It has Nothing to do with “Morality” or “Moral Values” that can and should guide it withing a democratic society. But We are Not Even There !

We Don’t Even Have a Country right now let alone a democratic government !

What matters is whether or Not we believe in Democratic values as essential to our nation and it’s social, economic and political progress !

As far as Contitutional Monarchists are concerned the answer has been and IS AN UNCONDITIONAL YES !

Democracy however cannot be achieved without Politicians themselves guided by a Political program or vision that subscribes to those virtuous values to which David is refering to or hopes to see in the leaders of his choice whether that person is to be a future President (as he would like to see) or a Future Prime Minister ( as I would like to see), a Mayor or deputy in Parliament in a democratic system of government.

That however is a entirely Different Debate than one which consists of reaching common ground on a given political objective which is basically a “Revolutionary” concept and we choose to call : Regime Change (or Regime Toppling). Since We have all now agreed that Reforming this Republic is virtually impossible all the more that the regime has lost any Legitimacy and trust for that matter.

Again We are Not hear to convert one another to our respective ideological preferences BUT FIND COMMON GROUND on a common Political Objective: REGIME CHANGE or Rather as it seems given our ideological differences TOPPLE THE REGIME !

Otherwise I really do not see what we Monarchists have in common with the MKO or Left Wing Groups with Right Wing Groups to want to eventually Cooperate with one another ?

David’s Questions have Nothing to do with finding common ground for UNITY but rather sheding a Moralistic and personal Evaluation of Another person or party’s Democratic values based on his own personal readings of what those values are or should be.

There are one Fundemental Text that sustain All democratic Constitutions as we know them today in the modern world and that is : The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As Constitutionalists We believe that text should be included in a Future Constitution whether it our System of government is to be a Monarchy or a Republic.

As Constitutionalists We also believe in a Parlimentary System where the elected government is accountable to the people and cannot pass laws without the approval of the elected majority of the parliment.

Human Rights and Parliment are the Two Pillars of all Democratic Systems of Government and that has nothing to do with Symbolic attributes chosen to represent That system of government.

So From this perspective the questions David has submitted are distorted to begin with because they are Ideologically driven by the personal and intimate conviction that what defines a Democratic State is a Republic.

I don’t subscribe to that Defintion Nor interpretation !

It is very amusing for me to see David dismiss the very idea of having a European Like Monarchy in Iran as an unachievable Utopia given that this idea is far more older in Iran anddates back to even before the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 but that he considers the Establishment of a Republic as historically legitmate in a country that has already experienced it for more than 30 years ( albeit a theocracy I grant him that) and to total failure.

David Given Your reasoning here , I can also conclude that The Islamic Republic is First and foremost Your Baby. It is an Offspring of Your Republican Experience. One can claim as You do rightly that You as an individual was opposed to the Islamic Republic and believed in the separation of State and Religion from the begining.

But You Share an Accountability if Not direct Responsability on the dissappointing Outcome as Much as Monarchists like me or our Crown Prince can be held Accountable for the shortcomings of the Monarchy but cannot be held directly Responsible them.

You shared with the Islamic Revolutionaries the idea (be it in the early stages like the majority of the people at the time) that the Monarchy was an Unjust System and deserved to be toppled. What You got After is the Result of YOUR OWN POOR CHOICE!

I or Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi cannot be held accountable if Your Revolutionary Experience went wrong ? ...

We can Only be held accountable for the Blood Spilled because of the Institution we believe in. You want Excuses ? Well I am Sorry about the blood spilled in shaping not only the Pahlavi Dynasty but the Iranian Monarchy in the past 25 centuries since it’s inception in our land by Cyrus the Great ( despite him being hailed at the United Nations and by History as the Champion of Human Rights).

But Neither I, Nor The Crown Prince nor the Monarchists will EVER Apologize for Being who we are or what We Stand for !

When did you see the French apologize for being Republicans despite the fact that blood was spilled during the Reign of Terror ? Or the British for being Monarchists despite having had Tyrannical kings like Henry VIII ( who Beheaded several wives) or queens Like Queen Elizabeth II ( who beheaded her direct Scottish Rival Queen Mary of Scots who was more legitimate successor to her father. Elizabeth was actually known as the “Bastard” Queen because she was born to a Beheaded Queen Anne Bolyne ) ? ...

If Iranians choose the Monarchy over a Republic, Nothing will Stop us Constitutional Monarchists to make the necessary excuses to the families of the victimes of the last Shah’s Absolute rule and pay tributes to their names in the same way The French Republic has made public excuses to the Holocaust victimes of deportation by the French VICHY Government or for the Colonial Wars undertook by various French Governments eversince the French Republic was established.

I would expect the same on behalf of Our Republic to be if Iranians choose this form of government instead. Where the president will have to make public excusses for the victims of the Revolution.

But we are Not There Yet !

That will be the job of History ( Time often Soothes pain) and objective historians to do their part of historical recollections in reminding that democracy in our country was not achieved without human sacrifice. That the Martyrs of the Revolution are to be honored as equally as the Generals and Ministers of the Imperial Army who were unjustly and unfairly executed in cold blood by the Tyrannical Republic that took power.

Republics and Monarchies are BOTH the Product of Human Mind. They Both aim at Serving an Entity we call a Nation and it’s People in Principle !

YET History Shows That BOTH can EQUALLY be run as Either TYRANICAL Regimes or Democratic Regimes.

If David’s core argument is to say Monarchies are Unjust to begin with, therefore it is no use to even discuss the matter but that if we do then monarchists should be excluded from participating in any coalition or Provisionary Government ... Then indeed we have Nothing to say to one another ...

But then don’t go whining like Shirin Ebadi or other Pseudo Clueless Republicans ( Who after calling for an Islamic democracy suddenly discovered the virtues of secularism only since last June ) that You are Preaching Unity.

Then Crying for help when Your Predictions turned out wrong or Your Choices prove dissappointing ( as has been Your case with Moussavi) !

Unity is Aimed at Bringing Opposite Views to work together be it for a given time and on a common platform of values or strategies which we share.

I do not see any difficulty in sitting down with David or other Republican Likeminds who are clearly for Regime Change and see no possibility to Reform the current Regime into a Secular Republic. It does not mean that for that matter I opt for a Republic but I am ready to defend him or his ideas if he is attacked by lets say the IRI’s or their Islamic constituency and Think Tanks. But then like every cooperation it has to be a Give and Take Process. What do I get in return ? By “I” , I do not mean “me” but My Constituency of Constitutional Monarchists.

We have our Radical minded Die Hards in the same way You Republicans have Your Radical Offsprings.

The Soroush, Moussavi, Karoubi or other Reformists or even Massoud Rajavi and the MKO are as Much an Offspring of YOUR Republican Mindset and Experience as much as the Garbage LA TV’s, die Hard Monarchists ( who don’t even believe in the 1906 Constitution but in an Absolute Monarchy) or the Mossadegh Bashers are OFFSPRINGS of Our Monarchist Mindests.

You cannot Escape Your Own Countries History. Whether You live in a Republic or a Monarchy Every 30 years that is a generation every country at some point comes at cross roads with it’s own history.

In a Democratic Society that leads usually to a reshaping of the political landscape with the appearance of new political parties or personalities where as in dictatorships it can lead to revolutions.

But The Post Election protests are also the expression of a Frustrated society that aims at profound change and a Political system that wrongly continues to see itself as legitimate both Morally ( with the distorted argument that the Islamic Revolution was one against “Tyranny “and Not merely an authoritive regime which was anything But a Totalitarian State even to the admision of some of the staunchest former supporters of the regime ) and Politically ( because it had so called free elections).

That is why in my view the so called Green Protests are not merely the result of the Sham Elections. To claim that is mere hypocrisy. It was a Time Bomb that was going to explode one way or another but the elections were a marking point and the faked or fraudulent results were the trigger that made this erupt into the movement we see today. What maintained the ambiguity that this frustration was real or genuine was the Reform Movement’s attempts to create an Islamic democracy.

And many including Iranians in the Diaspora supported this idea to the extent of participating in the elections of the regime that kicked them out. I won’t blame those who took part in the elections back home nor those like you david who chose to vote ( even knowingly for an ambiguous candidate with an already dark chapter in his own political record ) for purely strategic reasons thinking it can indeed reinforce the Reform Movement and test the possibility of a democratic transition within the constitution of the Islamic Republic. I prefered Not to take Part in this mascarad because I do Not consider this Republic nor it’s Constitition Legitimate.

It was and is after all an OFFSPRING of YOUR Revolution and NOT My Monarchy.

Khatami Democracy within the Islamic Republic:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUza-yhd9dM

So when I see people in the Diaspora Lecturing Me or Us Monarchists or even the Opposition movement about Regime Change I can only smile.

Which of you ever took a serious look at your baseless accusations and critics against the Exiled opposition without taking a look at this struggle and the reasons it failed to date ?

The MOFTKHOR Prince whose Honor and intentions You choose deliberately to Insult is of the same generation as you are. He was confronted to the same inner turmoil and doubts that have shaped us all over the past 30 years.

Sure like all Royalty he was born with a Silver Spoon in his mouth instead of a wooden one when eating his porridge or soup. He was brought up in an environment of priveledge and luxury incomparable to one in which our more modest environment would allow in comparison.

If you are judging him based on his pocket money and Crown Jewels entitled to him by Birth under the Regime founded by his father and grandfather which ruled Iran for more than half a century and under which both You and I as well as him were brought up under only to see it crumbled by a popular revolution … Then let me tell you that still under these conditions given that I consider the current Regime as Illegitimate from the Start and given that I did not participate in it’s fall that Any Money He has in his account Belongs to Him and Not the People.

His titles and Fortune are Not Stolen but on the contrary Belongs to Him by Right of Birth unless of course You Endorse the Revolution of 1979 as Legitimate which is Your Right.

So When I see you put as a Pre Requisite to Unity that Reza Pahlavi should Renounce to his titles in order to sit down at Your Table or that his constituency should renounce to their own political ideology You are Not at All Offering an Olive Branch nor any viable solution to Unity.

You are Precisely doing the contrary.

In that case I should rightly understand that You endorse the Revolution of 1979 and therefore I expect You in return to be accountable for YOUR OWN Collateral OFFSPRINGS From the MKO to Left Wing Radicals, Fundementalists Clerics etc …

I won’t hold that against You But Don’t Try and Escape YOUR OWN Accountability in that matter in return.

Reza never asked anybody to renounce to their idealogies. Where have you been all these years ?

Have you Ever even bothered reading any of his two books Winds of change or more importantly his latest book Time To Choose or any of the interviews in that relation ? I doubt it.

A Brief History of the exiled Opposition:

Your Responses and Constant Lecturing on Reza Pahlavis Shortcomings clearly show that you have absolutely No knowledge of what you are talking about and have no understanding of what the history of the exiled opposition has been in the past 30 years: One of trying to rally a Public opinion hostile to the monarchy including the Namak Nashnas Diaspora and Cut off from it’s own people inside due to a Regime Staunchly in place and reinforced by the 8 years War with Iraq and 30 years of Revolutionary Propaganda.

All this Amidst Assassination of it’s boldest Leaders or activists in exile from Bakhtiar to Oveissy to Shahriar Shafig the list is long …

You expected to see Results through what kind of activity ? Terrorist guerrilia like the MKO conducted ? Or the Rare Spectacular sporadic Attempts to draw attention of world Medias like during the Tabarzine Highjacking by Brave and dedicated Monarchists including Reza’s Own Cousin Princess Azadeh Shafigh who was Princess Ashraf’s own Daughter.

No Democratic Opposition in the 1980’s nor an Undemocratic one like the MKO could have succeeded in toppling the IRI without some form of public support both inside and outside.

In comparison Khoda Shaban BeeMokh Roh Biamorzeh !

The Mullah’s could have at best been overthrown by a Coup two of which failed due to treason !

Nojeh Coup General Ayat Mohagheghi ( along with the help of insiders like Gobtzadeh):

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM-x8nsSWTw&feature=related

A Failed coup that served the Regime’s Propagandist and their Conspiracy theories to discredit the Opposition as Warmongerers when their only Objective was to save the country:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssImWHrjWlU

You and me in the Diaspora or our own parents generation were trying to get a life and carry on rather than engage in any form of activism.

Poor Old Farrokhzad did what he could to rally ALL You Namak Nashnas’ in LA, Washington or London to what Result ? Assassinated by the IRI Squads in return to the general indifference of many of You Pseudo Republicans.

In such conditions and with basically No signal from inside Iran it was virtually impossible to create a government in exile.

Even Bakhtiar played around the idea that he was Iran’s De Gaulle and lost many great opportunities to rally equally republicans and monarchists at the table of compromise and negotiations. By the time he was ready he was already aged, and even Khomeiny’s death which gathered Millions of Iranians in the streets in 1989 discouraged so many of us in observing how solidly the regime was planted.

The Democratic Opposition in exile did what it could.

If they failed it was not due to incompetance as much as lack of means. Why then do you think they all rushed to get the funding which Trita Parsi and NIAC opposed them so staunchly on Capitol Hill ? Another gift to the IRI!

I won’t blame Reza Pahlavi, the MKO or others running to get their share as hypocritically and naively as so many of you hot tempered IRANICANS keep doing to this day.

How do you want to run an organization without material help including Foreign support ( which does not mean military support of intervention but political support and eventual recognition as was the case for De Gaulle during WWII) ?

Money does not grow on Trees and the Pahlavis are Not the Billionaires People think they are, they were not Finance Experts either.

Reza Was trained to become a Pilot like Prince Charles or Prince William are trained today and not a businessmen or lawyer which could have indeed served him when in exile.

Who could have thought when RP was becoming a Pilot and aimed at succeeding his father as King that he would have to question his entire upbringing and start from Zero into becoming a leader rather than Constitutional King ?

Many opposition leaders particularly in the Constitutional Movement or the National Front were run by people who by the early 1990’s were in their late 60’s or 70’s.

To start and continue to believe in reversing the tides of history was not an easy task for them despite their long experience so imagine the difficulty for a young and inexperienced Crown Prince in exile whom everyone was blaming him for his own father’s shortcomings.

The Crown Prince was therefore coming to an age of responsability of organizing an opposition when all his life he was brought up to assume an entirely different role that of King and Not Ring Leader. He was even most probably being trained to the idea of assuming a Constitutional Role maybe not entirely similar to the perfect democracies in Europe but with certainly a less political presence like that of his own father or Grandfather.

The Previous regime was probably trying to come up with some idea of a regency where people staunchly loyal to the Crown would carry on the political legacy of his father and create a State within a State. Whatever that would have been no one can tell for sure today nor predict in retrospect what Iran would look like had the Revolution not taken place and the Shah had died as he did knowingly from cancer leaving the crown to his son. But the fact remains that Reza is Not to be blamed for the lack of an Efficient Opposition in exile given that he had to create something from the rubble and with people much older and experienced than him at the time amidst a Religious Fatwa on His head and those of his family members.

So the least one can say is that he was honerable and tried to live up to the expectations the best he could and making mistakes in the process like any other person of good will and limited experience. But he has overcome many obstacles and shortcomings over the years like any man’s coming to age.

However once again this is where You fail to understand not only his position as heir to the Peacock Throne ( in the abscence of any one else like a Qajar Prince could equally claim that title) and his evetual Role as a would be Leader.

As Monarchists we consider Crown Prince Reza not as a Political Leader but as our King, therefore Above Political rivalries.

This is where I can join your observations in terms of a vaccum of leadership of the the Iranian opposition as a whole.

As Such any participation by Reza Pahlavi as a “Shahrvandeh Irani” aka “Iranian citizen” to a coalition of diverse political parties or sensitivities or to the formation of a provisionary government in exile would be one in which the Crown Prince presents himself Not as King but merely an Iranian who happens to be a Crown Prince.

And that is precisely what he has been suggesting without ever claiming to any role of effective leadership but rather of a “compagnon de Route” a little like let’s say a public figure whose name or historical status is acknowledged ( but not necessarily accepted) like Pope John Paul II ( but in the secular sense) was to the Solidarnosc Movement in Poland where the effective leadership was in the hands of people emerging from Polands civil society such as Lech Walesa, or Geremek who defined the political and intellectual structure of the movement.

Solidarnosc leaders were able to find in the Pope a vocal public figure who could help rally their concerns to the international community and despite the fact that Lech Walesa himself being a catholic was inclined to respecting the Pope’s Status and appreciating his support, Solidarsnosc was not composed uniquely of religious sympathizers and members. You had Jews like Geremek who himself was an Atheist and the bulk of the movement was Secular.

Don’t Get me wrong by the way …

I am not implying that Reza Pahlavi is Iran’s Pope Nor that he has such a wide influence worldwide. To begin with he is not a Religious figure and THANK GOD ;0).

What I am saying is that as Crown Prince ( The same could be said of his own Mother the Shahbanou) he has inherited a status that gives him a Latitude that other would be leaders (or Freshly embarked political President Wannabees or Prime Minister Wannabees) or even public figures like Shirine Ebadi will not have immediately.

I mean who will take any Wannabee President ( regardless of one’s personal qualities and qualifications) who would self proclaim himself Iran’s De Gaulle Seriously ?

//iranian.com/main/blog/eroonman/amir-jahanchahi-iranian-idiot-day

Maybe in the future and in a situation of political campaign where everyone is fighting for a piece of the cake upon regime change and ambition to the highest office of President or Prime Minister and where people have the luxury to choose such individuals could play an important and significant role but certainly not at this early stage of our struggle.

But any serious Opposition figurehead and realistic patriot should know better that Everything is a Question of PRIORITY.

If you are speaking about Leadership, again I said In my opinion (other monarchists may claim otherwise) I do not see Reza Pahlavi as the Supreme Leader of this Movement or Opposition if you will but as a Crown Prince with a Royal Status ( and Respected as such by his constituency) who is offering an olive branch and willing to accept any role people see fit in him in the meantime.

If the question is to see him spearhead the movement, personally I think he is not claiming any such role.

If it means serving as a moderator so to speak and catalyst in his own right, then indeed he can play such an active role.

For instance Spain’s Juan Carlos precisely had to do this when he had to create a government upon Franco’s Death. He had to compose with socialists and Right wing parties to come up with a solution accpetable by all parties so that a government could run the country. In the case of Crown Prince Reza and the formation of an Exiled provisional government the circumstances are obviously different but the problematic is the same: Bring together people including Republicans ( which was the case of the majority of the Spanish who did not consider the Monarch as legitimate) to work together and achieve a democratic transtion in a country which was till then run by Franco’s dictatorship.
But to come back to the question of the coalition of exiled Provisional government …

That exiled provisional government could include a President or Prime Minister or any other suitable title given that the choice of having a Republic or a Monarchy remains in the balance and can only be ratified once the regime is toppled and free elections are held.

Within such a vast coalition across the political spectrum nothing should stop individual personalities to emerge and express their strategy and political ambitions in the open and in full transparency as was the case for Poland’s Solidarnosc.

That has basically been what Reza Pahlavi as an Iranian Shahrvand aka Citizen in exile has been suggestion:REZA's CALL

: An Iranian Solidarnosc...by DK

To which dissidents from all political senstitivities have shown interest for the first time in public and have participated to think tanks as late as last June:
RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ... By DK

And the key is to also get the message across to the reformists and their leaders without exclusion as well as the Military or former Diplomats still loyal to the current Regime’s to part and join them:

IRANIAN SOLIDARNOSC:

Defecting Revolutionary Guard's confession and support to Reza Pahlavi

These are concrete Steps based on a Realistic approach which contrary to Your approach does not annihilate Anyone’s beliefs or personal loyalties but are leading to unity on a set of common goals and agendas.
This is where David, You and Me differ.

You want to force your conditions down everyone’s throat and convert them as a pre requisite to unity, where as I don’t claim wanting to convert anyone to become a Royalist.

I will try to convince them that the Restoration is the best solution to the ills of the nation and can guarantee national reconciliation and unity while being an opportunity for a democratic transtion to take place but I am not trying to convert anyone into believing that philosophically Monarchy as an Institution is necessary more “Just” in Form than a Republic.

I simply claim that it exists and can perfectly adapt itself to the democratic realities and transformations of our society as much if not better than the Republican form which you are submitting to our judgment.

The realities of Political leadership on the otherhand are of an entirely different nature. They are guided by Realism and practicality also vision which to date none of the Republican would be leaders ( where are they by the way ? ) seem to have displayed.

For example I watched with interest on French BFM TV an interview the latest Wannabee Self Proclaimed Leader which I mentioned above Amir Jahanschahi. When Jahanschahi asked about the possibility of seeing the French Hostage Clotild Reiss would be exchanged with Ali Vakili Rad the Assassin of Shapour Bakhtiar and what was his opinion.

The Guy bluntly said “It is not up to me to judge the decision of the French Government”.

What kind of Opposition Figure Who cannot even pay tribute to a former Iranian Prime Minister (whose Record as a genuine Patriot who Struggled for Democracy needs no proof ) is worthy of such a self Proclaimed title as Opposition Leader ? Leader of What ?
This is the trouble with Us Iranians. We are a Nation of Megalomaniacs !

Even when it comes to our struggle for Democracy We are equally Megalomaniacs and Perfectionists.

Even if they show us the shortest way of getting to our goals and even if we had all the guarantees that let’s say a Restoration would lead to a Perfectly Democratic Society albeit having a Royal Family with no political role and shut in the Palace. We still prefer the longer road at the expense of seeing far more people dead and why not even risk losing everything all together: The Country and Democracy.

And when Iran will fall into pieces and cease to exist due to our incapacity to unite we will say Ay Khak Too Sareh Shah ?

If this is not OLAGH Mentality I wonder What is ?

It’s More than pure Stubborness it’s a mental Disease !

As for Dearest Jamshid I don’t feel threatened by Marge or anybody else who thinks Reza Pahlavi is chubby ( which he is like anyone his age usually is) or has bad teeth or that The Shahbanou had a nose job for it will change my convictions about benefits of the Institution of the Monarchy in our country no more than a Brit would feel threatened by tabloids speaking about Prince Charles Big Ears or Lady Diana’s Libido or Sex Life, Prince William losing his hair or Queen Elizabeth’s Bad Breath.

So I do not see why David should be offended by an ironic and Brilliant comment by Orson Welles regarding the Cookoo Republic.

I would take it on the contrary as a compliment for it is first and foremost a critic of the mediocrity of some Politicians and their lack of imagination than a critic of democracy or even the Republican institutions. After all Italy to which Welles’ Character refers to was or ended up also as a Republic.

And Post Communist Poland ( to which I refer to in regard to the Solidarnsoc movement) is a Republic today but it did not stop it from adopting it’s Royal Flag once again with the Royal Crown on Top of the Eagle.

This is where I find So Hypocritical when We IRANICANS are ready to sacrifice the slightest Reference to our Royal Heritage so adamantly encouraged by the IRI regime we fled to the degree that we even reproduce that behavior subconsciously on grounds of ignorance.

Well Not everyone has Alzheimers.

David himself regularly drops the “Sword” from the Lion’s hand in his avatar as if to have to justify the fact that he is against War or Violence …

Or look at all those young and ignorant Green Supporters in LA who attack Monarchists with the Sun and Lion Flag protesting in support of the Green Movement and tear up their Flag:

//www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-273363

Others want to just use the tri colors ( which don’t constitute the Flag but an Emblem of the flag) for the same hypocritical arguments on grounds of neutrality.

I don’t want to blame JJ or Iranian.com which has evolved like all of us have in the past 10 to 15 years for that matter. I don’t think I see things anymore as Black or White as far as the Monarchy or the Revolution is concerned as I did when I left Iran or the first decade that followed. We have grown up and matured in the process through our discussions on these public forums and with a better knowledge that our community is diverse and rich with new ideas and philosophies.

But I do Hold IRANICAN Community at large and some lobbies like NIAC / AIC as well as nearly All these Diaspora Websites for having entertained in the minds of many and particulartly in the minds of the younger generation that the slightest support for the Monarchy was not only an obsolete behavious but even nothing short of an act of Treason.

Why doesn’t NIAC Use the Sun and Lion Flag on it’s website be it without the Pahlavi Crown ? Where is it a Shame ? Isn’t the Diaspora Community in the US most of whom grew up during the Pahlavis and left in the early years following the revolution a direct product of that era ?
Most of us who fled or left Iran for good Never had anyother passport until we got an american citizenship. Even those who consider themselves Republicans only because of the so called 1953 Coup and staunchly Defend Mossadegh forget that Mossadegh’s Party the National Front celebrated the Shiro Khorsheed Legacy. All photos of Mossadegh or Bakhtiar can be seen with the Shiro Khorsheed Flag.

Now the Amoo Nowrooz is Politically Incorrect because it would be assimilated to the N … Word.

If I can understand this for obvious reasons that it can be offending in a foreign land and amongst people unaware of the significance of our “Iranian Santa Clause” particularly in america which has also elected a Black President ( For whom I also voted) I don’t understand the rejection of the Shiro Khorsheed and All the So called ARMANHAYEH MELLI (all of which have been Supplanted by Arabic Signs of all sorts) which by definition are historically linked to the Monarchy whether we like it or not.

We never had a Republic in our entire history. Which does not mean we won’t one day if the majority decide so but to claim that the Sun and Lion is a Not a Royal Sign is Pure Hypocrisy base not just on ignorance so common amongst You IRANICANS but it’s also Intellectual dishonesty. It is a ROYAL emblem but it is also a National Emblem.

Austria and Germany and Even Russia today all of which are Republics have all maintained their National Flags intact ( albeit periods like the Nazi Era for Germany and Austra or the Communist Era for the Russians).

None of You guys who left Iran claimed to have a different Flag even after the Revolution was victorious all the more that most felt so ashamed to be associated to the Islamic Republic.

It was only When all this BS reform Movement and the Soccer Games started at the World Cup that people started to question the legtimacy of the Sun and Lion Flag and even pay Brandish the Islamic Republic Flag. I don’t blame those living in Iran doing that all these years of those who grew up with it.

But of all people the IRANICAN Diaspora ? What BULL SHIT and Hypocrisy on Your Part !

So the least I can say to the IRANICAN’s whether You Like Reza Pahlavi or Not He is a Patriot and Crown Prince of Iran by birth and heritage extending an Olive Branch to ALL Patriotic Iranians regardless of Political background or convictions, Religious Faith or Ethnic background.

It’s Up to You to accept it or Reject it or a minimum accept a healthy and constructive dialogue but don’t come back Rushing for Help when Your in Trouble next time or feel misunderstood.

Where did anyone of these other exiled Opposition groups including the recently exiled Reformist camp extend an Olive Branch to Reza Pahlavi ? Neither Shirine Ebadi who was against financing the Opposition ( including medias like Radio Farda and VOA Persian) but who was the first to rush and speak on these media outlets to demand support when the IRI turned against her offices and arrested some of her colleagues and family. the exiled democratic opposition to date ? Nor Akbar Ganji, , Soroush or Mohsen Kadivar and the other two blokes I forgot their names who in an open suggested a solution to the current crisis but which was mainly adressed to their own constituency and anyone who still believed in the Islamic Republic’s reformability ? …

David I don’t refuse YOUR Olive Branch as the Secular Republican you are if it means to enhance Cooperation between Democrats of all political sensitivities all the more that I do not claim to have the answers nor adequate solutions to Iran’s current crisis ranging from Regime change to drafting a new constitution or to avoiding the risks of War but I refuse to Apologize for Believing in a System of Government of my Choice which you clearly do not understand how it works nor where the entire concept of a Constitutional Monarchy originates in the History of Democratic thought and Democratic evolution.

David Jaan sorry to be blunt and my aim is not to offend you but at times you truly come across as someone who hasn't Understood ANYTHING in the past 30 years ? Despite the LUXURY of Living in Exile and being exposed to realities of life in western democracies which Our very own Compatriots back home are deprived of YOU Distort EVERYTHING I have written or Supported in the 10 years I have been contributing to this Site and others Diaspora Medias defending Not Only Human Rights but Denouncing Absolutism and SHAHOLLAHI attitudes within my own pro monarchist camp !

Lastly I want to say that contrary to what you may think I find this conversation VERY HEALTHY and interesting on many levels because it helps clarify misconceptions on both side. But before Claiming to some Moral Superiority in the field of democratic values simply because you believe in a Republic and begin lecturing us monarchists on democracy and democratic thought I would suggest you and Your Republican Constituency to Clean in front of Your Own Doors Steps first.

For Accountability goes both Ways.

My Humble BUT Firm Opinion,

Darius KAdivar

An IRANICAN Expat in France Aspiring to Knighthood (sic) !