Pictory

AMERICAN DREAM

Friend for the first time I agree with everything U said.Of course It does not mean we are correct but I feel the same way

پروردگارا،

پروردگارا، این بنده خود را که جز خدمت به وطنش کاری دگر
نکرد، در جمع آن بندگانت نگاه دار که برای ایشان آن پردیس اهورایی را در
نظر گرفته ای.

FYI/Henry Fonda Narrates Shah of Iran's Life and Times (1980's)

Another Very Good documentary on the Shah from the 1980's by Hollywood Actor Henry Fonda:

Henry Fonda Narrates Shah of Iran's Life and Times (1980's)

Vanity, Corruption, Savak

It was all preventable.

Abarmard

That was a great post. I usually disagree with everything you write, but this one was right on the money insofar as I'm concerned.

The reporter kept trying to put the Shah's nationalistic endeavors in the context of an agenda "against" the West -- a patently pathetic and underhanded way of delivering his government's talking points. After all, the BBC is owned by the British government.

The Shah, God bless his soul, was so smart and articulate in every facet of geo-politics, I wish this video was 10 hours longer, I would've eaten up every second with pure delight -- the only knock one may have is that he should've been more receptive to democratic demands as the economy of his nation grew. The ending of this interview illustrates his biggest mistake.

Nonetheless, God love him!!!, His Majesty. His first love was Iran. Sure, he made mistakes, but they were mistakes made in good faith, with a noble cause in mind -- the betterment of his country. 

For my money, his greatest mistake was in the early part of 1978, when he could've silenced the revolution by making a deal with Jebh-e-Meli. After all, he was dying with cancer. His kingship was over. But he was too proud. That was perhaps his biggest personal blemish, something that a great many of us Iranian men share.

Discard all the revolutionary LIES and MISINFORMATION about the Shah, and what you have is an Iranian patriot first and foresmost -- a man who loved his country and was trying to undo 1,000 years of backwardness, corruption and mismanangement in a mere lifetime. And he nearly succeeded, a monumental feat! -- but for his enemies abroad and traitors within.

As one can clearly see in this interview, the British were royally pissed off at the Shah -- yes, "their guy" had grown wings and was about to fly away from their colonial cage. What better way to stop that flight by supporting one of their own, Ayatollah Khomeini, aka, Ayatollah BBC, the most vocal leader of the reactionary religious establishment.

And within the morally depraved soul of mullah Khomeini laid the Western plans for a poison pill -- a counter-revolution against the ascendancy of the Iranian nation, for as we all know, the real Iranian revolution was the Pahlavi Dynasty. 

Mehdi

in your response to your long comment about west, Iranians + Mullahs (IRI), I must say that you are very wrong.  You do not realize that in past 30 years since IRI inception IRI has been exploited IRanians in the worst way possible that I do not think western countries would do.  IRI is not composed from true IRANIANS AND IS NOT FRIEND OF IRAN & IRANIANS. Similarly, western countries are not our friends, they think about their own interest as IRI does.

Payandeh IRAN & True Iranians

Eye opening

Yu can see how the Western elite controls Iran and similar ocuntries. They simply start a revolution or other form of national disruption every time the country starts to have a bit of power and cohesion. Even when these guys install a regime in Iran, they soon find that that regime is now starting to turn against them and so they go about starting a new revolution.

The situation has not change at all. Even today, the Western elite wants to destroy the Iranian regime ONLY because that elite is starting to have a hard time milking the country, as they used to in the last 30 years. The mullahs that these western elite put in place, after taking out Shah, are now just starting to realize what is going on. So the western elite is nervous again, and wants to get Iranians to start a revolution - the west wants a "regime change" again, promising the masses a eutopia that will "magically" arive after that. This is the same regime that they were VERY happy with for 30 years and they paid NO attention to ANY human rights abuses there. Now all of a sudden, the western elite is VERY interested in the SLIGHTEST human abuses in Iran and braodcasts it around the world repeatedly. What has changed? Well, what has changed is that the regime in Iran has started to wake up and smell the coffee. Even the most hard-liner mullah of 30 years ago is now speaking against IRI. So the west is very nervous. They want to start another revolution, another chatic movement that will force the country into a civil war or something so that the Iranians government becomes weak again. They are trying to split Iran into green, blue or whatever in order to weaken it again.

I hope most Iranian will realize what is going on and decide to NEVER again have any kind of revolution, no matter how bad things may seem.

Revolution and any and all antagonistic movements are destructive to Iran. Anybody wanting to do anything for Iran MUST do it within the framework of being a friend of the government and not an attacker. Any attack will ONLY serve the western elite - no matter how much fraud and corruption exist in IRI. The way out is to start a friendship that expands the whole country and NOT trying to hurt some fancies enemy.

We can always be civil and calm and stand up for our rights and ask for improvements without becoming antagonistic or "revolutionary." Revolutions and improvements just don't go together. 

A few Question

1) What would have happened if IRAN had completed building of its 8 nuclear reactor 30 years ago?

2) What would be the affect of a Prosper and augment IRAN in the region?

3) What would be the result of exixting an advanced and florished IRAN and its affect on the new countries( Specially Parsi speaking) as the result of USSR being dissolved.

SO WHAT?

None of this is relative any more. Stop living in the past.

American Dream

You seem to be incapable of independent thought and just blurt out leftist propganda.  

Mr. Fozolie

Four Years After WoodStock and Three After Isle of White Concert

Sex, Drugs and Rock'n Roll a Sign of Progress ? That's a Question of one's Point of View ... 

The Shah's Rant against the "Lazy and Permissive" West may seem far streched today and there is no doubt that the Shah's recurrent "Moralistic" Lessons to the West was deemed irritating to public opinion at the time particularly the younger generation that was expressing its desire for global change through "Flower Power" and "Love" as an alternative to the disasters of the Vietnam War.

But quite understandably Sex, Drugs and Rock'N Roll ( all of which were tolerated even in Iran during the Shah's reign since the young generation was as much "Americanized" and influenced by Western Consuming Society values as other European and particularly British Youth) was also seen as a setback of moral values in conservative circles even in the West. The Shah as much as many of his generation ( Mid 40's upwards) were born in a very different world, One which was soon to be plunged in the ravages of WWII. Their views were understandible shaped by that reality and the knowledge of the Price the World had to pay for the global ambitions of the former Western Colonial Powers who had not hesitated to exploit their colonies or weaker powers to satisfy their own needs. To see the same Powers suddenly giving Lesson's to the countries they exploited both economically and politically for decades was nothing short but hypocritical to say it mildly ...

It seems to me that the Shah's generation saw the POP Culture Generation who found fun and solice in listening to the Beatles and sinking themselves in Sex, Drugs and Rock'n Roll as symptoms of a society that had lost its values and references.

The Point is that The Shah's conservative comments echoed positively in many circles including in the UK as much as in most Third World countries painstakingly trying to fill in the gap with the Western Industrial powers of the time.

1970 Isle of Wight Pop Festival

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=A73s0NBlP4w

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtqfYOtlZQc&feature=related

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtqfYOtlZQc&feature=related

WoodStock 1969

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnamP4-M9ko

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_YUZXK6NBA

Yet I found the Shah's comments quite conciliatory in that he leaves the door open to mutual cooperation and understanding and it is striking to see the extraordinary contrast with the type of Bellicose Rant one hears from Iran's leaders today which has been constant since the inception of the Islamic Republic. A Republic that was ironically established by the same generation that envied yet benefited from the sexual and cultural revolution of the 1960's and 1970's but which established a Far More Conservative society once in Power after the downfall of the Shah they blamed for all their problems.

The Shah and the British

It was the British that brought this Pahlavi dynasty to power.

The involvement of the British Empire through the office of General Edmund Ironside helped Reza Khan come to power in the 1920s.

Reza Khan was removed by the British and the U.S.

His son Mohammad Reza was installed in 1941. Mohammad Reza fled Iran in 1953. He was re-installed in 1953. In 1979, Mohammad Reza fled Iran again. He died in Egypt in 1980.

Egypt was ruled by the British for some time.

British forces occupied Egypt in 1882.

In 1922 Britain declared Egypt an independent monarchy under Hussein’s successor, who became king as Fuad I.

The British brought the Pahlavis to power, removed them from power, re-installed them to power and gave them homes in exile. The British were good for the Pahlavis.

Was Mohammad Reza harsh with regards to the lazy British?

No, he was just giving his opinion. He knew western societies are into freedom of speech and expression.

God forbid an Iranian criticized the Shah. Any vocal opposition to the Shah would have been silenced. One would be removed from their bed at night and never to be heard from again.

The Shah even stated that Iranians don't want British democracy. He was dillusional.

Iranians wanted a democratic republic like the United States with the social freedoms of Amsterdam.

No wonder the Shah had to flee from Iran in 1979.

35 years ago..

35 years ago, Shan talked about Iran would be among the top 5 in the world, now Iran's GDP per capital ranks between 57 thru 71 in the world! a long way to go!

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

FYI/French Documentary: Le Shah d' Iran : un homme à abattre (20

In Relation to this blog:

French Documentary: Le Shah d' Iran : un homme à abattre (2005)

Shah of Iran

1-Shah gave too much effort to explain to British and later Americans what he stood for. He did not do that for his own people

2-Shah was fully aware that the future movement of capital was based on service economy, moving Iranian cities to do what UAE (Dubai) is doing now

3-The British and the West in general were very suspicious about the Iranian developments. Unlike the Arab neighbors, Iranians had shown resilience and intelligence unmatched in the area.

4- Shah was a nationalist and a proud individual (Also very smart), he would have not remained dependent and under the Western rule. Possibly, even under his future rule Iran could have witnessed heavy sanctions, demonization, or even militarily threats.

5- His advise to the British reporter was what we used to talk about the British in Iran. They don't work, are very lazy, talk too much, brag even more, yet politically they rule in such way that we pay for all their expensive habits. He told the reporter that it's time for the UK to become disciplined and "work" (for once).

6- Why did the reporter wanted to put words in Shah's mouth that Iran has something against the West? Only because he was doing something for the interest of Iran? Were they shocked to see that their "puppet" has gone astray?

7- Sad interview, just because we can see the promise of our future in his mind...

Tears in his eyes

Or was he on some sort of drugs?

Where is the rest of this interview?