Shah TV speech: November 5, 1978

"I heard the voice of your revolution" (Aban 14, 1357)



The clip is being altered.

by Shahrokh T (not verified) on

1. the date was 14 Aban 1357, but it was not Moharam.

2. Many parts of his speech is being cut, like the time he has asked the Ayatollahs to help him and the Iranians to stop the demos and look in future for building the democracy.

3. There is no facts that some one else has given him the paper to read. I feel that was his own words after many years that SAVAK let him to talk.
Look at his speeches. He never mentioned the word Mossadegh for 25 years.
For 25 years he had no powers to speak free in public.
Once Churchill said, the good politicians is when he sold himself, he has to stay sold for rest of his life.


He didn't know..

by SarbazIran on

This speech was given to him by the Uncle of Farah, the traitor Farah and her family who betrayed Iran.

The Shah asked to have this speech given to him before he was going to read it to see what's written in it, they didn't give to him. The Shah was sick and tired, he couldn't eat, he had problems and couldn't think properly. He just wanted to relax and rest. He was confused. He was sad and angry. He was lost. 

If you see in the video, you can see sometimes he says words wrongly as it's not what he is expecting!

Long live His Imperial Majesty,

always alive in our hearts. You are never dead until you are forgotten.

Safa Ali

he looks so sad

by Safa Ali on

wow, he looks miserable.

I feel bad for him, he worked so hard for his people and in the end, they just stabbed him in the back.

He died in exile just like his father, so sad.


Carpenter aka JN

by Anonymous kabir (not verified) on

Did you "embrace" Imam Khomeini? Weren't you embarrassed of the consequences of "embracing" a mulla? You know mullas never lose a chance to take advantage of every opportunity...


Pathetic Speech of..... Goh Khordam

by YT (not verified) on

Such a pathetic display of [GOH Khordam o GHALAT kardam] form someone who called himself a leader. The poor bastard even did not write the speech himself, Farah's uncle wrote the speech night before his departure.

[کورش اسوده بخواب ما داریم فرار میکونیم]

Shah perhaps would have had whole worlds respect IF he had stayed in Iran and accept the consequences LIKE A MAN instead of fleeing like a RAT. For that fact, Hoveyda proved to be more MAN than shah ever was. At least he stood by his beliefs, just like some of shah Generals did.

Shah BETRAYED all Iranians and Iran.


Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

Are you going to to sit behind your keyboard with a straight face and tell me that the vote resembled anything close to being valid?

As for the requirement that many of the Shah's supporters would have to be ready to take a bullet?

They did.


May He R.I.P.

by T.h.e.P.o.p.e. (not verified) on

Roohesh shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
Noor bebaareh beh ghabresh.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jamshid-e carpenterani, how about a nice big cup of shut the f*#k up!


The lost cause!

by Ajam (not verified) on

For monarchist, everyone who chriticizes Shah's rule is an IRI supporter, no question about it! Since they live in a state of make-believe, they can not come to terms with the fact that monarchy is finished and even people who oppose IRI do not even think of reverting back!

Shah was a despot who was under the impression that he owned Iran and its people (apparenty so do his followers)!. He rode the economic boom of oil surge (thanks to Mossadegh and the oil nationalization movement) through the late 60s and early 70s and failed miserably to even maintain a sound economy in the late 70s. He snuffed the slightest hope of our people for democracy and freedom of expression. He relied on his American and British masters to maintain his iron fist control over people's destiny! And when that support diminished so did his rule!

IRI is trying to do the same (and in some parts in more severe manners) but is facing enourmous challenges from the people on daily basis. These people may not have discotequs and McDonalds of the Shah era, but are not hopeless as they were under the Shah from their democracy prospect's stand point. These people fight for their rights as far as they find expedient and at the same time go about their daily lives and consider their country Iran (not IRI) and wave the Iranian flags by the millions when their coutrymen achieve success in athletic or scientific feilds!

Iran is still Iran and no matter whether monarchists approve of it or not. As it was under Omavid, Mongols, Qajar, Pahlavi and now IRI. None of them represent our people's real pottential, but they come and go as the storms and earthquakes do! The time of Pahlavi was up and it had to go, as some day does IRI, regardles of how many people they should have or could kill to stop the process. All that said, I hardly find supporters of Shah qualified to speak about democracy and freedom, let alone pass judgments on people's rights and entitlements to patriotism!


Perfectly Said

by Fair on

I cannot find any better way to explain our predicament. Thank you.




by Anonymous Patriot (not verified) on

Thank you! Yes, it is amazing that after 30 years of disaster following the fraudulent devolution of 1979, which was based on nothing but lies and promised nothing but lies and delivered nothing but disaster, the same people who have ran away from daily life under IRI twist the reality. When it comes to Iran, I have no sympathy with anyone, and I do not care to name those who brought us here.

But I guess what the problem is with some of "us" the iranians: for those who often end up being in charge of iran, iran and being iranian is only a footnote to their ideology and agenda, be it islam or wealth or power. As soon as we criticize islam preached by mullas, so many rush to stick islam to iranians forgetting what it has done to the country in the past 30 years. But hardly anyone jumps in to honor iran on her own merits. That is simply unfair.

Had we had people who cared about iran more than they cared about their ideology or religion or obsession with power and wealth, we would be as prosperous as Switzerland; and why not? We have natural resources, four seasons, educated and intelligent people, but at any turn we have been making the wrong turn and lost decades and centuries as a result. All that becuase we have so many cloaked iranians, the pretenders, who really do not want to be iranian and only want iran to be a base for advancement of their real identity, be it religion or leftist ideology or personal goals of taking control of centers of power and wealth.

Farhad Kashani

Patriot and Ali jaan, guys,

by Farhad Kashani on

Patriot and Ali jaan, guys,


Don’t listen to these propaganda claims coming out of this Q character. Like you said , what “free and fair” elections? What other forms of government were on the ballot that the people chose “Islamic regime”? Was a democratic republic on the ballot too? Was a federal government on the ballot too? Was a Communist regime on the ballot too?

Furthermore, did they even fulfill 1% of what they said the Islamic “Republic!!” would be? What republic? Are you kidding me?

Also, what happened after that? They took away the absolute basic rights of its people to pick their leader. They took their absolute basic rights to “free and fair elections!!”! They treated Iranians as sub-humans.


Come on sir! Have some respect for yourself and your country.


Guys, Q is what they call an “ideologue”. Every regime has them. They always try to “soften” the image of the regime. They make up and twist definitions. They change reality. They want you to look at realities from a “different!!” perspective. The IRI regime is one, if not “the”, single biggest undemocratic regimes in the world. It has taken so many of people’s basic rights that there isn’t a report coming out every day from all corners of the world from different NGOs and Human Rights Groups and U.N and governments….not showing how low IRI ranks in all fields of democracy and adherence to democratic principals like free elections, free press, freedom of expression, social freedoms….. The IRI, which has taken the right of people to eat what they want, drink what they want, dress up as they want,..and this ideologue has the “audacity” to say this regime holds “fair” election!!! A regime that has taken away basic rights of its people, will actually allow them to pick their leader!!!


One last thing, Reagan and all the “idiots” who voted for him and the process he got elected (Not “selected” as in Iran) from, are a trillion times more honorable and democratic than the fascist regime of IRI and everything it stands for and it does. A regime that you’re so much in love with.


You ain’t fooling no one.



I have the answer!

by Anonymous answerer (not verified) on

Carpenter said:

He [the shah] should have embraced Imam Khomeini. What would have happened if he had done all this?

You know mullas are shrewd and "ham az toobreh mikhorand ham az aakhor".

Mix this with the sharia law that "lavaat" is haraam only if there are two witnesses and you get your answer!

Should I spell it for you Mrs. Robinson?

Okay I'll do that: if shah had "embraced Imam Khomeini" (I mean physically embraced the bast*** Imam), Imam would have immediately seized the opportunity of his life time and committed the act of Lavaat with him. Obviously, the poor shah could not afford that after seeing Imam doing the same with the whole nation of iran and the result of it. The nation of iran is still bleeding as a result of what Imam did to them 30 years.

May shah who brought decades of peace and prosperity to iran rest in peace. May his misguided, arrogant, and ungrateful traitors who brought us here for their personal gains rot in Hell.



by Ajam (not verified) on

Whether the Shah did want to read that apology speech or not, he was fifnished for his abdication was a foregone conclusion! He made way too many unforgivable mistakes in the eye of the people! He gloted in defeating the people's will after the CIA-led, 28 Mordad coup with celebrating the 2500th anniversary of monarchy by throwing lavish parties and inviting everybody but the people of Iran.

He outlawed all political activities and forced people to join his one-party system. He dismissed any voice of dessent as enemy propaganda. He dressed up the cities an in mini skirts and caddilacs, while the majority (and yes, majority of Iranins lived in rural dwellings) of people living in destitute did not share his view of a "golden civilization!" And eventually, he created too many reasons for people to feel alienated from him and his rule.

And when Khomeini came along -- In abscence of a viable political structure, leaving religion as the only alternative -- people embraced him as the anti-Shah. The marginalised, secular/political minority could identify with him because he stood up to the Shah from the very beginning and offered the only hope to end his tyrany, and the religious majority loved him because he was a "man of god" who promised them the rule of Islam as well as "freedom and independance." And yes, the majority in Iran, still consider themselves Moslims!

I too, as many others here, was not old enough to vote, and would not have voted for the Islamic Republic even if I could, but remember vividly that a big majority of people (an absolute majority, 80-90%)voted for Islamic Republic. In fact my father (who was a Mossadegh supporter and and opponent of the Shah) and mother did not vote at all having cited the lack of choice on the ballot form (e.g. a democratric republic), nor did my siblings who were students and old enough.

However, and ironcally my father was delighted to see Dr. Bakhtiar trying to form a cabinnet and offer a political third choice, but even he stated that it was too little, too late while the army lurking in the corner to restore the system -- a view shared by many who had respect for Bakhtiar. He (Shah) should have done that (power-sharing) way, way before poeple turned away from him and clinged to religious stablishment as an alternative to a political solution!

Indeed, there are times like this that distinguish a brilliant leader from a dim-wit despot! One cannot modernize a society just with nice cars and flashy suits, but a modern state requires much more than growing economy -- namely a viable civil society, NGOs, grassroots movements and functioning political system!


Shah's roundup!? (to Nouraee)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Nouraee says: "I only wish that Mohammad Reza Shah had rounded up and executed all of these Arab-parast gangsters, especially the Indian."

Absolute majority of Iranians were with Khomeini and "Arab-parast" according to you. Your suggested roundup would have required many Shah's supporters that were ready to take the bullet. Only a few of his supporters were ready to do that ... despite all his mistakes even Shah knew that his supporters were not going to fight, many were even afraid of talking!


Do you see the resemblance?

by Factian (not verified) on

There is an amazing resemblance between Ayatollah Khomeini and what he promised and what he delivered and Bernie Madoff and what he promised and what he delivered. Does anyone think they are related? Perhaps the long lost brothers?

Emam khomeini's devolution was as much authentic as investment with Genius Madoff.

Khomeini lied about shah (the past) and lied about what he would do for future (freedom, free bus fair, ...) and delivered torture and imprisonment. Madoff did the same with people's life savings as khomeini did with people's soul and flesh and country's wealth. Khomeini stole wealth of children of iran - the money that did NOT belong to him - and sent it to his arab brothers in palestine and lebanon.

Khomeini's devolution was as authentic and fair as investment with Madoff has been. Both let their followers down to the abyss and suicide.



by Lefty Lap Poodle (not verified) on

"beyond any shadow of even the slightest hint of a doubt"

Does Carpenter make you horny?! You need to write a blog about your nemesis!

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

He should have given up all the money he had to the Iranian government? He should have embraced the Indian?

He WAS the Iranian government, Carpenter. He was the ruling sovereign.

And as far as your idea that he should have embraced the degenerate who wanted him dead......once again, you have clearly demonstrated beyond any shadow of even the slightest hint of a doubt that you are a deeply disturbed and uninformed individual.


Shah should have embraced Imam Khomeini

by Jamshid Niavarani (not verified) on

The Shah's time was up. He should have renounced the throne and abolished the monarchy. He should have given up all the money he had to the Iranian government. He should have embraced Imam Khomeini. What would have happened if he had done all this? Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would have probably been buried in Behesht Zahra Cemetary in Tehran. And the Islamic Republic of Iran would give him a retirement check until 1980 when the Shah died. As for the rest of the Pahlavis, they would have to work for a living, like everyone else. This was the best case scenario for the Pahlavis.


Stupid? Yes. But NO one voted for this!

by eroonman on

Many point to the immediate referendum shortly after the revolution as proof that Iranians wanted the Islamic Republic. The fact is that as advertised the very day before the referendum, the original question was posed as, "Do you want a constitutional monarchy or a democratic republic?".

When the people went to the voting stations the next day, they found armed pasdars and other thug elements guarding the ballot boxes. The ballot was in 2 colors, red for monarchy (the traditional color of evil and yazeed), and green for what then became apparent read "Islamic Republic", in green the traditional color of eslam (Seyedi). This trick, combined with the armed pasdars scowling at the voters, scared them into choosing the obvious, namely survival, or the green ballot.

What made this further obvious was the marking of one kind of stamp in your passport and birth certificate if you voted for red, and a different stamp if you voted "correctly". The colors of the ballot obvious when you dropped it in the box. As you did, the pasdar would stamp your passport accordingly.

Later, having the wrong stamp prevented you from leaving the country, and in many cases led to your arrest, having been identified as an anti-revolutionary opponent.

The claim that Iranians overwhelmingly and willingly chose the Islamic Revolution is entirely false, as the intimidatory and fear inducing tactics are not the way in which a referendum is carried out in the civilized (as in civic participation, not to imply un-cultured) world.Certainly there was no free debate and discussion about the differences, inner workings, risks, benefits, and intentions of an Islamic Republic before the referendum. Had there been, I am positive we would not be here today.

This is how we got her from there. It is an entirely complete hijacking of the first step we ever took towards freedom. And it was hijacked by people with ill-will towards us, and done so falsely in the name of this particular religion.

It is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of those who used it to further their own murderous aims. Nothing more than yet another chapter in our long history of being stupid for continually putting our trust in flawed leaders.

You can totally apply this to our national soccer team as well.


%98 and daryadar madani!?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Ali12 says: " I was very young then, ...daryadar madani could topple them with a coup......"

Mr. Ali, you were too young then, but I was old enough to vote, and I DID NOT vote for Islamic republic. However I knew even then that absolute majority of Iranians wanted that system. Khomeini et all made a huge mistake mixing politics with religion by pushing the idea of "Islamic Republic", however they had the popular support for that.
Regarding your daryadar's coup, had he attempted it, it would have failed just like other coups ... last of which was Mr. Rajavi's coup.


who says 98% voted for the mullahs?????

by ali12 (not verified) on

where are u getting these figures???? you actually think the akhoonds held "fair and transparent" elections???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
give me a break, I was very young then, but I clearly remember that the pasdars were threatening people to vote "areh"....and even more funny is that there was only one choice on the ballot!!!! so what do u expect....
also, khomeini had his orders from the brits, the decision was already made by carter and the rest of those morons to let islamofacism rule iran....
the same crap happened in the election where madani clearly one the election, but the pasdars placed multiple ballots each to have banisadr win- since they knew daryadar madani could topple them with a coup......


au contraire

by Alborzi (not verified) on

They have realized a few nukes will not give them any
advantage against USA, but they also realize once they have the know how then an idiot will not turn Iran into hell like Iraq. Just as Korea was never attacked, even though they arguably have more Draconian regime and have threatened both Japan and S. Korea.
The Iraq war was conceived in the west and Iran was supposed to be the victim, but they fought it to a draw, they were helped by Israel. The Israel alliance and Armenian alliance vs Azerbaijan, shows they are not too simply driven by religious conviction.
But thats besides the point, the point was Shah was an idiot coward and these guys are competent in their goals.

Shah could not understand his situation till he died and thats what we call delusion. But as I said he is dead, all you have to do is to accept if he was not an idiot coward, he or Reza would be in Iran not Khameni. Its like when you cook lobsters live, they do not realize its over till its over. Its over, they won
Shah was a coward idiot. Repeat after me he was a coward idiot. Now you are cured.



by Anonymous Patriot (not verified) on

You either did not understand my points or chose to ignore them. They voted for a theocracy not democracy. Had they voted for democracy, iranians were given the opportunity to have voided their votes long time ago if they so chose.

The behavior of IRI from day 1, starting with murder of shah's generals by a bunch of thugs without the due process was one component of an undemocratic system which must be based on rule of law and void of emotion of others. That sealed the coffin of democracy.

The establishment of Vali-Faghih as well as giving veto power to a group of people over selection of candidates (not to mention exclusion of 50% of population, the women, from presidency) put the last nail in the coffin of democracy.

A system is not a democracy by name, as in democratic republic of n. korea, or by vote, as in saddam's republic of iraq. It is the spirit of democracy which makes a system democratic. In that regard I stand by my conjecture that people who voted for what has taken 30 years to bring down MY country stupid and immoral; and those I consider kind words to describe the depth of the disaster that those votes caused all of us, including YOU who have obviously been unable to tolerate living under the islamic republic and have ran away into the arms of the western real "democracies".

You obviously do not want to objectively view the "stupidity" of those who voted in 1979, and it is not I that call them stupid, the youth of today, call the actions of their forefathers by the same language as that action denies them of their basic rights today. My guess is that you are imprisoned in prison of (islamic) ideology and thus unable to objectively distinguish between a democracy and a theocracy that iranians voted for in 1979. In that regard, a dictatorial monarchy is far more superior to a theocracy since the dictatorial monarch will eventually die, but in a theocracy, the rule of the fake god and the tool of deception that religion has become will never die but replenished every now and then as we have seen in the past 30 years.



by Q on

I should be more clear. You "can" and obviously do call them stupid. But that doesn't mean it was undemocratic. Who gets to decide what is "informed" versus "ignorant" decision? You? Or a majority of the people?

What 98% of the people voted for in free and fair elections is democracy by definition.

You are right, nobody voted to oppress the 2% either. That was no where in the three separate occasions that Iranians went to the polls to vote in the year 1979 to show their overwhelming approval for the Islamic Republic system.

As I said before, it's like the 60% of the Americans who voted for Ronald Reagan. You can call them stupid, but you can't say it was undemocratic.

Any vote in any democracy is a gamble. There is no guarantee that the person/thing/system you vote for will be exactly what you want or what was advertised before the vote.

Many people who fought and created the United States of America did so with the understanding that there would be no central government of any serious authority. They were wrong and they are stuck with that decision. The US federal government now is the biggest, most powerful authority and frequently does overrule regional and state authorities.

The people, of course, always have the option of rebelling and overthrowing the "system" itself if they don't like it. But they have not done that thus far. (The American civil war was an instance where they tried).



by Anonymous Patriot (not verified) on

You said:

f you can call 98% of adult population of anyplace "stupid" and "wrong", that means you don't believe in democracy.

There is a lot in what I said, but your conclusion is totally incorrect.

Democracy has its own problems, but let's take it for what it is. 98% of people of iran did NOT vote for democracy, they voted for national suicide clocked under deception and supported by social and political illiteracy (aka stupidity) for a number of reasons:

(1) None asked what this "Islamic Republic" was that they voted for or against. Yes, I consider it stupid to vote for a "name".

(2) How many of them had read the constitution that they voted for and how many understood the consequences of major flaws in what they voted for, likes of Vali-Faghih, Discrimination against women, etc.

(3) Well, you can still insist that, maybe they knew what they were voting for and wanted to vote for it. Fine, they had every right to commit mass suicide, BUT they had no right to commit the remaining 2% OR the future generations to national suicide.

Democracy is NEITHER oppression of the minority (the 2%) by the majority, NOR a one-time event washing the hands of all future generations from either responsibility or self-determination. These two anti-democratic flaws were at the core of what people voted for after the revolution.

What those 98% voted for had none of the characteristic of a democratic system. They voted on behalf of all of the future generations (assuming that IRI will survive) to a decision made by their forefathers in 1979. They simply had no moral right in doing so; and that is NO democracy. Democracy is a dynamic on-going event, based on lack of trust on any single individual or body, and placing the decision on the hands of the people that when they make a mistake and elect the wrong individual, they can displace him in another educated vote. Otherwise, it would be no different from dictatorship that so many despised.


Ali Sefati / Ali12

by Q on


show me a tyrant in history who thought of himself as a real tyrant. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein... they didn't even call themselves "zoorgoo". Most tyrants have convince themselves that they are acting on behalf of the people. A necessary dillusion of grandiour. If anyone could possibly escape that, it wouldn't be a guy who was born a King, and was called "Shahanshah" all his life.


Anonymous Patriot, let's clear up something:

by Q on

if you can call 98% of adult population of anyplace "stupid" and "wrong", that means you don't believe in democracy.

Everyone who has ever lost an election decisively can call the winning side "stupid." This is not a substitute for the voice of the people. It's just bitter complaining.



by Anonymous Patriot (not verified) on

Thank you. You said:

Face it, Shah did NOT have popular support at the time. Nor did Bakhtiar and other progressive modern thinkers.

You are correct. However, imagine that you have a child who wants to jump into a abyss. What would you do? Let him do it or slap him in the face and hold him back until he is mature enough to know what he is doing. That stupid child was the 98% of iranians in 1979. We know they were wrong, massively wrong, even though there were so many of them.

Majority is not always right. They are often wrong if they are uninformed, unwise, and tangled into an out-of-date ideology called religion or a failing ideal called the left of Lenin and Marx.


Lessons Learned

by eroonman on

Pardon me but has anyone gotten the point illustrated once again by this latest example? When are we going to learn that we don't need "Leaders", we need employees. One of the most damning traits we have as a people, is the inability to understand and comprehend this very simple point in particular. WE don't need a LEADER!!! WE need the freedom to discuss (yes that means argue), the various options we should/could consider, and then by a fair and free vote, simply choose the best idea that most of us think would work. Sensibly, with a responsible hat on our heads, choosing from the many choices (including a constitutional monarchy, or an Islamic republic) that we as a people, collectively feel is wisest. If the governance turns out to be wrong, or does not work out, again more debate, and choose another choice. That's democracy, that's freedom! A continuous ongoing fine tuning of the system through free debate and vote.

Discussing and fighting with each other over which dictator we liked better is stunningly stupid don't you think?

But understandable given we've all been walking around and around in circles, dazed and confused, and above all wounded for the past 30 years.


One word to describe who Shah was "Incompetent"

by Ali Sefati (not verified) on

Shah was no "zoorgoo" nor an arrogant person. Yes he was a Monarch and Monarchs usually have them their way but he installed after CIA overthrew the people elected government of Mossadegh so he was defiantly not popular among many Iranians no matter what he did.

However you don't just call Washington and ask them what to do next. A king is supposed to take charge and get to learn his country and his people. He was too out of touch with his people and he was too incompetent to take charge.