Iranian of the Day

How about Ghajaris, Emil?

Which side of the coin do they belong to? The rim I am sure LOL

Dictator-zadeh out of place...

This dictator-zadeh is way out of place when he is NOT interviewed by one his monarchist supports who suck up to him none stop thru out their interviews.

This guy is not brave enough to answer to questions directly about his dictator daddy...

Hide in you whole if you are afraid to touch the cheese, you may be caught by the trap...

Shah/Monarchy, Akhond/Islam, two side of the same crap...

Some of you Hezi jackals

and leftist robotards are so pathetically desperate in your illiterate responses I couldn't help feel horribly sad for my country.

You know who you are -- and in particular, the righteous genius who thinks Iran under the Shah was a "Totalitarian" state -- need to go back to school and learn a thing or two about politics and life in general before pontificating about matters too complex for your dimwitted, obscenely biased world-view.

Reza Pahlavi did a truly BRILLIANT -- fantastic! -- job in the face of an overtly aggressive reporter -- it was not a home run, rather, it was a freaking Grand Slam! Pahlavi answered the questions calmly and intelligently, which is far more than we have come to expect from rabid wild dogs, pimps and chaghoo-kesh beasts like Khamenei, Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad. 

I'm enormously proud of Reza Pahlavi and his message -- exceedingly so! -- for fighting the good fight! God bless him and God bless his father and his grandfather. God bless all of those who love Iran and only Iran!

Emil

Usually I don't respond to garbage. But this time I want this thread to come back on the list for those who didn't see the interview. And you were on the top of the comments.

In case you didn't notice, this is an interview by BBC which is not located in Los Angeles.

Mission accomplished. Now Emil, go back play with your plane. 

Shah of Los Angeles...

Why not these monarchist put a hat or a crown ( preferably made of a very thin material) on head of this dictator-zadeh Reza Pahlavi and make him Shah of Los Angles.

You can create a SAVAK on the side and rent one of the LA county's jails and turn it to Evin prison. Then you can all live happily after with your Shah of Los Angeles till you all join his dictator father. 

The Butterfly Effect

Prince Reza Pahlavi says that dictatorship of his father was not one of the main factors of 1979 Iranian Revolution. He points out other factors, and I suggest he can add to that list “the butterfly effect.” That is to say a butterfly in Niavaran Palace fluttered, which made a slight breeze, which affected the weather, which brought about a cyclone, which whirled the people into revolt against his father. His majesty the king accompanied by his entourage departed and left the generals and the country to the mercy of fanatic clerics who executed the general and elevated the dictatorship of the shadow of god into the rule of the viceroy of god.

Certainly the prince is not responsible for his father’s wrongs but he can level with the Iranian People and disclose his inheritance as public record of his legacy. In any case as an Iranian actively seeking the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran religious dictatorship he is to be commended. Thanks prince.

Re: He can't run away forever

When did he run away? RP is not responsible for his father's actions. He should only be judged on his own.  RP does not need to manufacture anything. We can see who he is and decide for ourselves. It was the Mullahs and the left that manufactured lies they fed people to take over. 

RP has shown himself to be intelligent; aware of issues and patriotic. He has as much right as any of us to his opinions and to present his views for Iran. I honestly think we would be vastly better off with his leadership than any other ones I have seen up to now. At least he is not "kissing" the hand of Khamenei like Mossavi. 

He can't run away forever

Reza is desperately trying to fabricate a sort of legitimacy for himself based on historical fact (his father was the last Shah of Iran); yet he avoids any discussion or critical observation on it. Does he need that past or, not?

Prince Reza is a skilled interviewee

Ari,

Since when the art of being interviewed is to follow the path that the interviewer wants to lead you? If ones answers a wrongly designed qusetion (ala totalitarian regime) then one is bound to give an incorrect answer. He is not an easy prey to such follies. Being confrontational must appeal to your sense of romantic adventure but then that is why you are a good romantic writer and not a politician.

Kooloocheh: 

"This mentality of: he is because his father was, is not applicable in modern politics."

Well, I am afraid the Kennedys, the Bushes and recently the Clintons beg to differ.

Efozab,

Being "smart" is certainly one attribute you are so badly devoid of.

At least he is "smart"

I think we all need to get real on these politicians and their individual aims etc. We all know that they are all liars and cheats. It matters not whether they are Reza Pahlavi or Ahmadinejad. They are ALL the same- just dirty dishonest politicians. HOWEVER, given that the world whether we like it or not is run by these objects, which one would you rather have? The "smart one" or the "stupid one"? It is the pursuit of this answer which leads any sensible Iranian to choose Pahlavi over Ahmadinejad. Unless of course you are from the inner circles of the billion dollar making Sepah!

RP's interview

Maybe I am in a minotiry but I liked his style. My opinion of him went up. I understand Ari's logic but maybe people will see the benefits of non confrontation. After all Mossadegh was firey but did not manage to survive. Maybe a more measured person is more able to bring stability and peace. I hope people are tired of fighting and want prosperity. Frankly RP is the only "leader" of any renown that i trust. Plus we need to patch relations with the west just to get the economy going. RP is able to do that.

The view of Reza Pahlavi of

The view of Reza Pahlavi of Iranian people is above party politics. It's the view of a king. He doesn't call Iranians 'my subjects' but more appropriately for our modern time 'my countrymen'. But it doesn't change the fact that Reza Pahlavi, the crown prince, can not be confrontational in a 'party politics' sense.

He doesn't even defend the monarchy. He IS the monarch, whether he likes it or not. And as the monarch, he carries out his duty in defending his country and his people. THIS IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNED TO HIM. And as long as this constitution is the only legitimate constitution of Iran, every other 'party politics' BY OTHERS should revolve around this reality.

When his father told Iranian people 'I heard the message of your revolution' and acted accordingly, he committed himself to the rule of the constitution. He did not succeed to carry out on his commitment but he never abdicated nor renounced to his constitutional duty.

His son, Reza Pahlavi is carrying the same commitment, with one step further, on relinquishing the future of the monarchic system to the democratic will of Iranian people. But in order to relinquishing something, it has to be there in the first place.

As much as it sounds absurd, suppose Reza Pahlavi has exactly the same judgment about his father that Khomeini did. This is irrelevant. He has a constitutional duty to carry out as the crown prince. He has a duty to attend to the will of his countrymen, including the choice of political system.

Lack of clarity creates a confusion, not only in Reza Pahlavi message, but also to his critics, hostile or well wishers, who are looking for a more confrontational RP in the wrong place.

He is not a political contender to fight his way to conquer Iran and put the crown on his head, for which many might think he doesn't have what it takes. This is a wrong critic because it is not expected from him. He is not even a contender for becoming the head of a republic, even if he was so inclined. He is our legal crown prince of our legal constitution. For modern and secular Iranians, any attempt in re-defining the legal system of our country, at any level, starts from this starting point.

I do not believe enriching uranium in our country in current situation is in our national interest. It is not. Therefore claiming our 'international right' on this matter is inappropriate. (Nothing enforcing IRI is in our national interest). But this may be disputed in 'party politics' framework. Any attempt in dragging Reza Pahlavi in party politics, by any interviewer or any observer, will drain out any efficiency of his role as the crown prince of Iran, the unifier, and constitutionally the right person to claim his country back, along all Iranians.

Some do it because they are hostile and intentionally they want him to get dirty with party politics and become inefficient in our struggle for freedom, some others because they are confused in where placing him in their struggle for a free Iran. But the only guilty one is Reza Pahlavi himself. For the lack of clarity.

The interviewer called him 'prince Reza Pahlavi' and not 'Mr. Reza Pahlavi'. This is a good start. This should now be understood in its historical context of TODAY not the past.

BBC Persian TV is a cheap copy of the real BBC

Mr Fani is trying hard, and failing, to copy the original BBC 24 program called "Hard Talk" on which his program is based.

He is a mumbling, uprepared and a non-aggressive interviewer. If you want to see aggressive journalism, see an example of the real program here (Sir Richard Dalton, former British abmassador in Iran):

/www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lqr6y/HARDtalk_Sir_Richard_Dalton/

محتوا

عنایت فانی    نه، من منظورم نظام پادشاهی بود قبل از انقلاب ایران

رضا پهلوی    خوب نه به آن توتالیتر که نمی شود گفت
 

عنایت فانی    پس چه می شود گفت

رضا پهلوی    نبود فضای آزاد سیاسی 

رضا پهلوی    به خاطر خفقان سیاسی بود

رضا پهلوی    آزادی عمل به مفهوم سیاسی اش در آن نظام نبود

رضا پهلوی    آیا شرایطی که در آن زمان وجود داشت نیازی به چنین انقلابی داشت یا نه
 

عنایت فانی    پادشاه ایران قانون اساسی مملکتش را زیرپا گذاشته بود و دولت و کابینه و نخست وزیر و تمام دستگاه اجرایی دولتی بی معنی شده بودند و عملا در دست یک نفر بود. اینها چقدر موثر بود که این انقلاب رخ بدهد؟

رضا پهلوی    من خودم به شما می گویم. تا مقدار زیادی تاثیر داشت در ایجاد آن بحران سیاسی

رضا پهلوی    باید گفت که برخی از مشکلات به خاطر برخوردی بوده که خود نظام با مسائل داشته، این را که اصلا منکرش نمی شوم
 

رضا پهلوی    یکی از آن فاکتورها البته نقصی است که در آن وضعیت رژیم بود که به اصطلاح از حالت مشروطه بودن خارج شده بود و به یک سیستم خودکامه تری تبدیل شده بود
 

عنایت فانی    یعنی شما به دنبال کسب قدرت و احیای نظام پادشاهی در ایران نیستید

رضا پهلوی    حرف من در اینجا فقط این است که حق این انتخاب، این مناظره و این بحث و گفت و گو را باید به تمام افکار داد تا مردم ایران بتوانند با گزینه های مختلف که در برابرشان هست، بهترین انتخاب ممکن را انجام دهند.
 

عنایت فانی    سوالم به این دلیل بود که احتمالا کسانی که از شما طرفداری می کنند، از شما این انتظار را دارند که به عنوان رضا شاه دوم در پی احیای نظام شاهنشاهی باشید و تلاش و هم و غم شما در این جهت باشد 

رضا پهلوی    خیر. همه آنها این گونه فکر نمی کنند و این انتظار را ندارند

رضا پهلوی    امروز مساله احیای پادشاهی و یا ضدیت با جمهوری نیست. مساله آنها امروز آزادی و دمکراسی است.

رضا پهلوی    این را من در مورد تمام صفوف می گویم. هر کدام از این جریان های فکری ممکن است که مساله هدف صنفی و مسلکی خود را جلوتر از یک هدف والاتر و فرامسلکی قرار دهند. چنین برخوردی از دید من اشتباه است. حالا چه مشروطه خواه باشیم چه جمهوریخواه چه چپ و چه راست.

رضا پهلوی    من به همان اندازه که از حق یک طرفدار نظام پادشاهی دفاع می کنم از حق یک جمهوریخواه هم دفاع می کنم. به همان اندازه که از حق یک لیبرال دموکرات دفاع می کنم ممکن است از حق یک مارکسیست هم دفاع کنم

لینک متن نوشته مصاحبه در سایت بی بی سی

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/12/091215_mm_pahlavi_interview.shtml

Ari

I see your point.

kooloocheh

VPK

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Gotcha.

I think RP does sound reasonable enough to participate in the (fantasy) democratic system of the future. Let people be the judge of whether he should be given a chance or not.

What was very strange to me was the aggressive tone of Enayat Fani.
What is wrong with him? Why so belligerent? I don't understand why any
man needs to answer for his father's shortcomings? And even if Fani's
intention was just to ask RP his opinion about Iran's recent history,
then why pin
the man against the wall to admit what Fani believes to be the obvious:
that the Shah was a
dictator? What's the journalistic value in that? There's only the
sensationalistic value of getting a man to bash his father on your
show. Wow! Great job Mr.
Fani! Now you could join the ranks of Sean Hannity. I was pleasantly surprised when RP calmly said that the
system had in fact grown out of the realms of Mashrooteh and into the realms of
Khodkameh. 

To: kooloocheh

I need to be clear. I did not say RP would be "Shah". I agree we do not need a monarch.  But I think he could be a good two term president and the head of a political party. Or he could serve as Prime Minister if we were to go the parlimentary path. 

My point is that we need a leader to manage the post IRI nation. My requirements are pretty minimal:

1) Not a Hezbollahi or an Islamist

2) Not a Marxist specially not MKO

3) Be reasonably educated; sane and understand the world outside of Iran. 

I think RP fits the bill. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

My dear VPoKh, do you really believe that the monarchy will ever return to Iran? Wouldn't you consider that a step back in the political evolution? I mean even if we're talking about a democratic monarchy, which is what I hope all monarchists out there, all fifteen of them(J/K LOL), are talking about, then my question is, why do we need the circus act? Why the 'fatherly' figure? What's the point of the theatrics? Lets cut the fat, and get to the essential part of the system that actually has a function, the democratic part, and be done with the ornaments that bring nothing to the table but useless formalities.

I've always detested tashreefaat, whether it was imposed by religion, hokoomat-e padeshahi, or any other traditions that weigh us down. 

Ari: Frankly, I couldn't

Ari: Frankly, I couldn't give a hoot about what RP thinks. I asked you as an individual whether you think it's in Iran's national interest to support Hamas, Hizbollah, Shitte groups in Yemen, Bahrain, etc...?

RP

1) Ari jan; I will stand by my (somewhat misquoted) statement: It is not in Iran's interest to support Hizbollah or Hammas. Nor is it in our interest to pick a fight with the west or with Israel. In fact Israel is a potential ally and we are better off with her as our friend; definitely not an enemy!

2) Zebel20: Reza Khan was a great man. He was the best and I wish we had another one. However his  son Mohammad Reza was sort of like Obama! No real backbone. Just take the path of least resistance and never take a chance. As for RP I don't know. But I am willing to give him a chance. ran needs a clean break and RP may be just the man. He has the disadvantage of being brought up as royalty. But the regular life of a normal man in America has though him a number of lessons. Who else is out there? The others are not great. The so called "opposition MKO"  are vile traitors and are a non starter. The "reformers" as just watered down Islamists. The students are inexperienced and need to be groomed for future but are not ready just yet.

Reza Pahlavi has all the qualifications required to lead Iran  {except for a Persian name :-}. 

1) He has a brain not infected by Islam. He is a reasonable man which is more than what many others are.

2) He has the experience of living like a normal person. He raised his kids; has a regular family and so on.

3) Support of Monarchists and potential support of all non Islamist. 

4) Knows how to deal with foreign nations. This is very important because we need to do it.

5) Highly educated and aware of what is going on. He is nobody's fool. He saw his father trashed and maybe learned some things.

6) The Reza Khan genes. Maybe they will express themselves.

We need a good person at the helm. RP will be a good compromise candidate. We can all live with him. He is the most sane of all the potential candidates.

Ari

Eventhough I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying and even the conclusion you draw, mainly that RP would favor the foreign views, but I don't quite see how you get there logically. In the interview I noticed the "emphasizing the mutual interest issues" which was going directly to the sanctions question, but if my understanding of what you're saying is correct, the avoidance of conflict of interest, was not related to the question of sanctions that he was asked.

Hooshie

I don't think coming from a 'line of leaders' is qualification for political career. After all, we're not talking about racing horses here, we're talking about political leaders. This mentality of: he is because his father was, is not applicable in modern politics. As you said, he is just an Iranian with an opinion, there are millions of us, why give this irrelevant guy air time?

vildemose

 Position 1: It is not in Iran's national interest to support Hezbollah and Hamas.

Defense: Among other national interest issues (such as the economy), it holds up Iran's civilian nuclear energy project.

Position 2: Iran has a right to enrich uranium. 

defense: It says so in the NPT.

Basically RP needs to show that when it is in Iran's interest he will advocate what the West likes, and when it is not in Iran's interest he will take his nation's side. As it is, his interviews appear to curry foreign favor by emphasizing the mutual interest issues (bad IRI etc.) and avoiding conflict of interest problems (regional power etc.). 

hooshie

 Of course if there are enough such people in Iran, then RP matters on that account. Conclusion: unless the BBC Persian and VOA interviews are just human interest stories, these broadcasters should explain how they know there are masses in Iran who want a monarchy. Otherwise why the airtime?

The point you missed Ari

.. is that Prince Reza has never claimed or even entertained ambitions of being or becoming a leader. He does not need followers. And he matters because, first, like you Sir, he is of Iranian descent. and second, and unlike you and the rest of the commenters Sir, he comes from a line of political leaders who have left a lasting and indelible impression on Iran's political scene.  

Kaveh Ahangar?!

With all due respect, I think we need to contemporize a bit. I don't think examples like Kaveh Ahangar are that relevant in todays Iran.

Talking Now is Cheap...

I am sorry but despite the fact that Reza Pahlavi is a sincere Iranian or not, The fact is that he and his likes have NOT what it takes to rescue Iran and Iranians/Persians NOW! These people can't sacrifice their lives and wont endanger the safety of their loved ones for Iran.

They will only come forward completely when other brave one/ones put their lives on the line at all costs!!!

Iran needs a leader like Kaveh Aahangar to come out of this misery! A true Iranian who is willing to take charge by actions, by putting his/her own life for the cause irrespective of personal losses...

Moussavi and Co. are not the answers for Iran either. They were and are parts of the EVIL Islamic Rapists in Iran.

Why does he matter?

Who is RP but just another Iranian living in the diaspora? Regardless of  whether we agree or disagree with him, why are we listening to him? He's just another dude with (almost) an opinion. He means nothing to the majority of Iranians in Iran. Why are we even considering him for a leadership position? Because his father was? That's just as rediculous as wanting to punish him for the crimes of his father, like the interviewer seems to be doing here.

I don't understand this guy's relevance at all, particularly because he doesn't even seem to be that interested in leading; or if he is, he's
going about it in a quite passive aggressive manner, which is not a good quality in a leader.