MONARCHY

How do You Say "Revolution" In Greek ? ;0)

Thousands of protesters have attacked banks and shops in Athens and Greece's northern city of Thessaloniki, angered by the police's killing of a teenager.

More Here

Oh Smart Asses Greece is a Republic by the Way ... ;0)

An Eerie Prediction

“We had all sorts of freedom. What fraction of Iranians wanted the kind of freedom that you are talking about and for what purpose? Where are they now? We had every freedom except for those few who wanted to do what Islamists did, scream fire in a theater and cry wolf, to create chaos and take over the country.”

My cousin wanted the forms of freedom that I mentioned in the article. He was arrested by SAVAK after publishing a newsletter condemning the one-party system and advocating the benefits of multi-party, democratic governments. Together with his classmate accomplice, he was shoved into an unmarked police car when both of them showed up to attend school the next day at the University of Tehran.

He died at age 24 while he was in SAVAK custody.

In all fairness, I don't know what other activities he was involved in… What I know is this: He craved freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to assemble and freedom to demonstrate. He sought a republic for his country… In his newsletter framed by my aunt, he wrote:

“When a monarch takes it upon himself to dictate the political choices available to a nation, the masses are easily duped to seek unsavory characters as outlets to express their political frustrations with the regime. In the absence of a free press and under strict censorship of any forms of published media, it becomes impossible for the opposing groups to expose the true colors of such characters and their long term intentions.”

It was as if he was predicting the rise of Khomeini to power…

Farokhzad

I presume according to you there is a statue of limitation on revolutions and uprisings etc.

So let me ask you this. Lets say hypotheticaly says Iranians will hold a referedum and Monrachist win. How long is that good for ? considering that you wrote "democracy is not a one time privilage" . If the monrachy is permanent then you are violating your own point and if it is only a timed privilage wouldn't that be what republicans are saying all along!!!?

My point is that permanent ideologies such as Monrachists, Socialists , etc claim to want to be "democratically" chosen and then they want to keep their system forever! without any time limits while the republicans say , this is not a "one time privilage" and should be repeated every 4 years by free and democratic votes protected by a constitution.

If only Monrachists, Socialists etc could have seen the similarity in their unfair self centered demand for permanency (just as Islamists have) they all would have become republicans!

Dear Q

Like I said the two extreme views are : one unrealistically asking to eradicate Islam from Iran and the other being yours hopelessly claims that there is not much anyone can do about it and it is what it is  and then I offered the middle ground of what we can do and that is to fully isolates and disallow Islamists groups and mullahs  (or any religion) from parliament , government and judiciary because of the separation of religion and state .

The Father & the Son

“95+% of those in Savak's prisons are alive and well in leadership positions in iran.”

May I respectfully point out that Mohammad Reza Shah-e Pahlavi was no Reza Shah-e Pahlavi? If the son had continued the policies of his father, the mullahs would not have been in any position to be in leadership today.

The father was a war-hardened military man who recognized whose his enemies were and set out to target them one by one. Reza Shah was gifted with a keen sense capable of identifying his enemies and their life-line:

Since the defeat of the Persian forces by the Arab armies, Islam has formed a center of power headed by Mussavi Sayyeds in Iran. To this day, this traditional citadel has its roots in neighborhood mosques and the Shi'a system of education. Before the establishment of IRI, this center of power was funded by khums (the taxation of 20% of all earned income by mullahs). Reza Shah-e Pahlavi knew all this in 1923...

The apple does sometimes fall far from the tree: In 1977, it was estimated that there were 85,000 mullahs and mullahs-in-training in Iran. Amongst this crowd, 1200 of them held high ranks such as Ayatollah or Hojat al-Islam. Narrowing this list even further, there were only 75 high ranking mullahs who possessed enough clout to rally the public in the name of Allah.

None of these mullahs were in SAVAK custody in 1977! Even more ironic is that the majority of them were on SAVAK’s payroll to combat Communism. A few even served abroad as the cultural attaché.

Iranians have made up their mind already???

Really? You speak for all Iranians, Mr. Kashani? 

If by making up their mind, you mean the choice of dropping a red or green card into a box with a g3 rifle pointed at him/her, then I see your point.

But, more importantly, as wow pointed out, democracy is not a one time privilage, especuially if the winning party fails to deliver on their promises (see: american elections 2008).   Why can't they change their mind and have another refrandum? what is it about voting that scares so many Iranian "democrats'?

Iranians have made up their

Iranians have made up their mind already, they don't want Shah or Sheikh-Shah! We want a democratic republic. It is not a secret though that the actions of the illegal, illegitimate and savage regime of IRI are absolutely nothing compared to what Shah’s regime did. These IRI monsters, make not only Shah, even Hitler, look like an Angel!

Dear David ET, voice of reason,

kindly point out what part of what I said was "extremist" ?

You speak like khomeini.

Author said:

People already decided the fate of Pahlavi Dynasty thirty years ago. The revolution was a referendum on Pahlavi Dynasty even though the ensuing regime proved to be a dismal failure.

You speak just like khomeini did. You forgot two major details:

(1) devolution of 1979 and whatever decision that came out of it was based on two major frauds perpetrated upon people of iran: (a) massive exaggeration of shortcomings of shah, and (b) total misrepresentation of what khomeini was to bring in for people (from free speech to free bus and electricity -- all promised, none delivered). That vote and that decision was nothing but fraud and therefore void.

(2) Even if the people truly made an informed decision that shah must go then in 1979 (which they did not based on conjecture (1)), the democracy that you are preaching is NOT a one-time vote, as it was for the islamic republic. It IS a continuous process. In that continuous process either you jail someone for the crimes that he committed or allow him to participate and re-participate. It is NOT for YOU or ME to qualify or disqualify someone based on his associations or qualifications, we each only have "one" vote, period.

After the demise of mullahs, during this so called referendum of ours, must we include Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the options on the voting ballot? Or should we consider that matter entirely closed?

No offense, but you are just preaching democracy without really believing in it. As much as I hate the IRI and their supporters, if we believe in democracy, we need to live with the painful consequences of democracy. Democracy is indeed a difficult system of government that we failed to understand in 1979 and we still make a goddess out of it. The painful by-product of democracy is that all islamists should either go to jail and pay for their crimes against people of iran, or if they are innocent as seen by a court of law, they should be able to participate. As you see, it is one thing to theorize about democracy, it is something totally different to practice it and face its unpleasant consequences. That is why we so much complained about shah for decades prior to the revolution, yet have been totally unable to bring up a single leader even remotely as progressive and as flawless (i.e., with less flaws) as the shah was for the past 30 years, so much so that compared to the likes of rafsanjani and ahmadinejad (criminals who collected 15 and 17 million votes in the last election, respectively) the unvoted shah is considered a saint by so many, mostly within iran who have to face the IRI day in day out. Shah was a glass 90% full, but we only focused on his 10% empty (the luxury issues that you raised, free speech, etc -- issues which only a tiny fraction of people faced) and broke it and threw it away, and have ever since been unable to find any replacement for it.

His Majesty, Reza Pahlavi

His Majesty, Reza Pahlavi is "seeking" nothing, if you look at his action and listen to his words.  He is not calling for anybody's head. He is not pitting Iranian against Iranian. He's not raising money. He is not forming a government in exile or amassing an armed militia.  He is simply, in a civil manner, offering his opinions and availing himself if he can be of help.   He does admit to past errors (as hard as it must be for a son to say about his great father) not in a way to  appease and fool anybody, but, in an honest, retrospective way. He also says he would be available to serve as a constitutional monarch- something he was born into, and raised to understand was his duty. All his, in the face of years of vilanization by one's own countrymen. This is what his actions and words betray over a span of nearly 30 years.  You can choose to believe him or not.  

I doubt you believe him, Ms. Gilani, given this obsessive vitriolic hatred for anything Pahlavi. But, even your compatriots must admit to this family's honor.  They have behaved themselves with integrity and hid their bitterness over the years. They have born the pain of unimaginable familial loss with grace. They've known all along, and now we know too, that what was said about them were lies. They didn't steal $20 billion, they didn't torture and kill thousands of innocents, they didn't take the crown jewels with them, etc. etc. etc. Shah didn't lie when he said mullahs were dangerous. He was no "div" and khomeini was no "fereshteh".

Letting People Decide

“But what if we LET people decide about Pahlavis, rather than YOU and ME deciding for them the same way what Khomeini decided their fate. Isn't that the democracy that you are preaching, or is it only a democracy as long as it agrees with YOU?”

People already decided the fate of Pahlavi Dynasty thirty years ago. The revolution was a referendum on Pahlavi Dynasty even though the ensuing regime proved to be a dismal failure.

His Majesty, Reza Pahlavi, is seeking a second chance, another match-up, an opportunity to roll back the time. I respectfully pass on that and instead extend to him and all Monarchists a hand of unity that binds us together: the Derafshe Kaviani. Under this banner, we can topple the regime of mullahs and build a republic to honor our fallen.

A nagging question has been troubling me since the debates surrounding this article began: After the demise of mullahs, during this so called referendum of ours, must we include Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the options on the voting ballot? Or should we consider that matter entirely closed?

Earth to LA

الو لس انجلس؟

بله، لطفا قسمت ایرانیان مبارز رو وصل کنید.

سلام آقا، بنده از طرف شازده‌های قاجار یه عرض کوچیک داشتم:

۱- کدوم شاهی برگشته که شما دومیش باشین؟

۲- هر خری که این گوساله‌ها رو سرنگون کنه، خودش حکومت رو دو دستی‌ میده خدمت شما :)

۳- اگه یک در میلیارد هم شاهی به ایران برگرده، سهم قجره نه اون بی‌ اصل و نسب‌های تقلبی!

Shia extremists by

Shia extremists by definition are inherently racist, bigoted, militant, violent, totalitarian, murderous and so on. And if I am a racist for abhorent these "fine characteristics" then color me racist too anytime!

If you embrace and cherish shia extermism then don't be a coward; be proud of who you are and go on your merry way killing infidels!!!

Farewell!!!

Thank You David E.T.

I hear you my Good Friend. I read your responses and appreciate you sharing your views and also clarifying the distinction between the Unity Platform that can be developed and brainstormed independantly from our personal political preferences or convictions.

On the otherhand similarily to you I would like to respond more in detail in regard to the reasons that justify my personal loyalties and convictions and to some of the interesting points you brought up that deserve an answer be it for a better mutual understanding as to where I stand as a Constitutionalist. As well as to the points your brought up regarding Reza Pahlavi and why the Pahlavis and not another Dynasty, Why a Monarchy and not a Republic etc ...

Whether I do so on this thread / Blog or Elsewhere I am sure we will be able to discuss this further in the future.

I think I have always tried my best not to have a "Langue de Bois" like the French say in that I am open to discussion ( even Heated ).

Also If I may express myself with Force or Vehemence at times please forgive me but it is never personal or at least I try my best not to be rude but sincere or at best in adequation with my convictions since we express them on a Public Forum and one is often expected to justify oneself in order to remain coherent and focused which is often more demanding than in a dialogue between two people in an isolated discussion.

Nobody is Perfect and defenitively not me ;0)

But again I think this discussion and debate is not only inevitable but also Healthy and worthwilde given that it concerns us all directly or indirectly at some point.

Cheers,

D

The Call for Unity Amongst Whom?

“A question for Ms. Gilani: Could you please name the Iranian political factions/organizations you have in mind?”

I am referring to every existing political faction and organization that is fighting the mullahs’ regime. We will not be able to defeat IRI's stranglehold on our nation without agreeing on a collection of principles that will safeguard us against another tyranny.

The mentality that advocates “anything is better than what we have now” is false. We have arrived at this junction precisely because of such a flawed reasoning. This time around, we must know what we are getting into, who we are supporting, and what principles are driving the movement.

Of course, I am under no illusions that political factions such as Mojahedin-e Khalq will abandon their Islamic ideology to join a movement unified under the Derafshe Kaviani. The flames of war between Islam and the ancient Persian civilization still seethes under the surface, beckoning the old warriors to battle…

Islam and future Iran

I find both opposing views about Islam and how to address it within Iran as discussed by those such as ShahRex and Kaveh V on one end and those of Q on another as two extremist views where the answer actually lies right in between.

anonymous wow.....damet garm~

perfectly put hamvatan....it's sad that there are idiots who still don't get the basic truth about the akhoonds and their foreign masters

Human Rights

“I asked earlier about rights. What rights do Iranians have? Are these rights earned or god given?“

The answer to your question leads us into a philosophical discussion rather than a political one. Nevertheless, I will address it briefly:

Human rights are neither earned or God-given. They are simply bestowed by a higher power, a tangible power other than the mythical God worshiped by majority of populations around the world. In modern societies, this tangible power is the authority of the masses, the collective clout of a nation. When the citizens of a civilization rise up to demand freedom, they grant human rights to the society as a whole.

Consequently, the revolution of 1979 marks a point of no return for Iranians. When the masses spoke in such clear terms, and when the cries of freedom reverberated throughout our land, it became an impossible task for Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar to work within the status quo to grant their wishes. Today, after thirty years of human rights violations, even mullahs who rule under the pretense of the authority of God can not suppress the thirst for freedom in Iran.

The genie is out of the bottle… Our struggle will continue until the day we can bask at the altar of freedom. Along the way, we may be duped by mullahs or may be betrayed by other politicians. We will falter and waver under the burden of such a colossal task. But the dream will never die.

Dear Dariush

The SOLUTIONS article although is written by me but it has a different basis than those of my preferences such as secular republic or my call to Reza Pahlavi to abandon his claim to becoming a Shah or my opposition to a referendum. I do not also claim to be unity guru without any political preferences nor believe in such kumabya approach. I am offering ideas based on shared principals and on the side I will promote my preferences. 

 I am trying to write the solutions independent of my political preferences and it remains to be a work in progress. It is important not to mix that with my other articles, comments and personal preferences!

The solution may or may not come short of some answers, but hopefully everyone will allow the "principals" to take precendent over their preferred "forms" in order to find a common "platform" and seek a "resolution" to their differences.. 

On the other hand I have no interest in forming a republican party or manifesto as political parties must be formed within Iran to have any success, however general road maps, solutions and viewpoints can be addressed anywhere.

As for inclusion or exclusion of monarchists or any group in the reconciliation and unity movement that choice remains to stay with them.  Indeed as you said the goal is "Regime Change" within the outline of common values and principals.

I have no intention to also prescribe a form of government within the solutions yet reserve the right and continue to promote my own preferences outside of it.

I recommend the readers of solutions now and in future to read the message only and not mix that with the  messenger and also help to improve, revise and critique it .

I really do not have much ,more to say about your other comments except that I do not believe in giving someone or system a chance just because he or it happens to be around (Iranians already did that in 79) but I have no opposition to Reza Pahlavi on equal grounds becoming a true force in the process of change or even being elected on limited terms in different levels of government. As for monarchy I already have stated my reasons for opposition to it.

Best

Ms. Gillani,

In your euphoric state of mind to get something published and owing to your inadequate understanding of what Iranians really want, you decided to attack the "usual suspects," on this site, in order to make sure you will draw some attention to your confused ideas.

It also seems your mention of Mosadegh is only a pretext to legitimize and perhaps give some weight to your otherwise shallow and half-baked arguments in favor of "democracy."

Even if you had intended to, supposedly, help in the creation of a broad-based coalition of the diverse Iranian opposition groups in order to somehow miraculously establish a democracy in Iran you have failed dismally. At best you seem extremely ignorant of what constitutes a democracy and what democratic freedoms mean and at worst you sound like the supporters of the current regime who frequent this site to sow the seeds of division while claiming they want peace for Iran.

Except for regurgitating the anti-opposition propaganda zealously dissiminated by the regime and its supporters, what are your sources for claiming that people will not choose this or that form of government or vote for this or that group or individual?

PS
We should all thank JJ for providing this site to practice our writing skills.

Kaveh V ,,,, Sick ham khodeti, ma HICH nisteem

[....Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group....]

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal

Master Kaveh V. with all due respect YOU sir fit the description of a Genocidal Manic more closely than any other person. Am glad likes of you will never be in power.

And sir, Spare me the name calling, I have read most of you postings. So much hatred in ONE person is something rare to see.

Have a great weekend

Since when fighting the sick

Since when fighting the sick genocidal Islamists is called extremism ?

Are people fighting for their freedom extremists too ?

Fighting against Islamic serial killers a form of extremism ?

So many of you muslims are really a sick bunch!

sickfiri

Dear Sickofiri,

Question is, ARE YOU RACIST sir? Or simply an extremist?

According to Part 1 of Article 1 of the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which states :

[.......any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, religion, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life...]

Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards.

At the expense of being judgmental about you, since I have not had the honor of knowing you, your posting reflects both of these despicable characteristics of any group, no matter what clothing they have on.

I asked you one simple question:

What makes YOU better than a [Shia] Extremist?

Indulge me with your answer please.
Good day

YT

I agree with some of your points however A FEDERAL REPUBLIC should be the one we need to aim for after this SHIA REPUBLIC... that way all of us are represented no matter our ethnicity/race/religion...

Are you one of the militant

Are you one of the militant khomeinists? BTW, Khomeini was Iran's Bin Laden.

Death camp? When did I suggest such a thing? I wish all of them a long life as long as they obey the laws of the land.

What do you suggest we should do? Do you think they would give up their murderous ways in the name of their so-called Shia? Do you think they will allow a secular and democratic Iran to be established without a fight?

sickofiri

Dear Sickofiri,
You say [....Militant Shia, Khomeinist Shia, Fundamentalist Shia, terrorist Shia or whatever you choose to label this politically motivated brand of Islam is more
dangerous, more perverse, more destructive, more totalitrarian than Nazim ever was. Unfortunately, between 10 to 12% of the population in Iran adhere to this evil ideology at the expense of others and are at the helm of military and economic power.....]

How do you propose to do this? according to you, approximately 9,240,000 Iranians adhere to that [Evil]..

Tell me, have you and likes of you picked out the location for your DEATH CAMP??????

What makes you better than them???? Can you site ONE???
Have a nice day

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

Ms. Laleh Gillani, Mr. David ET,
Bravo....

I enjoyed reading your posts, both as the original article by Ms. Gillani, and the post by Mr. David ET. I enjoyed them not only because I share the same political values with you, more so because your ideas are progressive, modern and well thought, to say the least.

I too lived part of my youth under the Pahlavi dynasty. As I read through writings of pro-dynasty friends I can't help it but to notice how valiantly they are trying to PROVE, with the reason of comparison between Pahlavi era and IRI era. I must make a point of saying that I by no means am trying to justifying IRI regime, for my family and I have paid very dear price.

Reasoning's are : Oh well Shah built roads, and this and that. let me ask one question: are we to praise Shah for merely doing his job? Besides which road and infra-structures are we talking about?

When in September 16, 1941 Shah Mohamad Reza Pahlavi was PERMITTED by Allied Forces to take the throne in Iran, Despite his vow to act as a constitutional monarch who would defer to the power of the parliamentary government, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi increasingly involved himself in governmental affairs. He concentrated on reviving the army and ensuring that it would remain under royal control as the monarchy's main power base.........

As time passed, Shah completed his chock hold on Iran and Iranians.
With Iran's great oil wealth, Mohammad Reza Shah became the pre-eminent leader of the Middle East, and self-styled "Guardian" of the Persian Gulf. He became increasingly despotic during the last years of his regime. In the words of a US Embassy dispatch, “The Shah’s picture is everywhere. The beginning of all film showings in public theaters presents the Shah in various regal poses accompanied by the strains of the National anthem... The monarch also actively extends his influence to all phases of social affairs...there is hardly any activity or vocation which the Shah or members of his family or his closest friends do not have a direct or at least a symbolic involvement.

[...In the past, he had claimed to take a two party-system seriously and declared “If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized”....]

[...., by 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the RASTAKHIZ (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The Shah’s own words on its justification was; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t....]

I am certain, if not all , but at least some of you ladies and gentlemen are aware of the history, so I will not digress by getting into written history of Pahlavi Dynasty.

As history has shown Shah, anytime there were an unrest in Iran, he did what he always did the best, He fled the country.

Ladies and gentleman, Shah was our leader( nasalamati) but he left Iran and Iranians. Sadly enough this has been story of Reza Pahlavi, so far. As recent history has show, when POWER is bestowed upon ONE person, rather than group of people, NO amount of checks and balances can be created to keep that ONE monorch on check.

We have seen it with our own eyes, how Shah re-wrote the constitution of Iran, which was written by bloods of our Satar-Khans, Bagher-Khans and Mirza Kochik khane Jangalis and best of our youth during Mashtoriyat. Pahlavi Dynasty, with its arrogance and disregard to any LAW and human dignity SURRENDERED our country to blood sucking regime(IRI) which fits in the same category as Pahlavi Dynasty, if not worse.

I, humbly repeat subject of my post:

POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT, and ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

At the present time, Iran and Iranians do not have the political infra-structure to be able to keep another monarch in check, Specially one with as bad of a record as Pahlavi Dynasty.

As Ms. Gillani put it so passionately, we need not ONE but GROUP of Iranians, intellectuals, sectarians and monarchist, Muslim, Jews, Christians, Turks, Kurds and etc......., if possible, and represented by every minority, religious or otherwise. After all WE, as Iranians are the very first MELTING POT in history of human kind.

I think, if I am not mistaken, this form of government is called REPUBLIC........

Have a wonderful day

Militant Shia, Khomeinist

Militant Shia, Khomeinist Shia, Fundamentalist Shia, terrorist Shia or whatever you choose to label this politically motivated brand of Islam is more
dangerous, more perverse, more destructive, more totalitrarian than Nazim ever was. Unfortunately, between 10 to 12% of the population in Iran adhere to this evil ideology at the expense of others and are at the helm of military and economic power.

They are the Wahabi/Al-Quda version of the Shia Islam and have to be dealt with in one way or another via legal means. They have no place in a humanistic, justice-seeking, non-racist, peaceful, and progressive society.

Gilani, I thought you were serious

After the defeat of Hitler, the Nazi Party and their ideology became illegal in German. In the same fashion, in our future constitution, our legal scholars and experts must devise ample safeguards to protect us from various flavors of Islam.

This is nonsense, offensive and the first reason why anyone who says it won't be trusted by the majority of Iranians. There will not be a bloody war to overthrow of IRI. But in any case, Islam is not "nazism," it is an integral part of Iran and Iranian culture. You can't "keep it out" by law and claim to be democratic. There couldn't possibly be anything stronger than what Ataturk did in the 20's. 90 years later Turkey is more Islamic than ever.

Dear Dariush

I will read fully and respond to your post to me but after few conversations by others. I do not intend to overcrowd the blog.

I also have few comments about the issue of Islam that was brought up here and how to avoid future controls which I will address in next post or blog if needed. I think that is also overstated and has a solution!