Pictory

Arj's wrong assumption and wrong conclusion

"the generation that lived under the despotic rule of Shah (in absence of political parties, civil society institutions and electoral system...), having no real democratic experience, were easily cunned by Khomeini " Arj

I am a generation who lived under rule of shah, and I never felt undemocratic under his rule and most importantly I never been cunned by khomeini. In fact, I read all those Amir Parvis Pouyan book or Mojahedeen flyers when shah was on power. All of my reading about Marx, Lenin, mao is from shah's day. Nasser zarafshan, Abdolhosaine Nosheen, Feraydon Shayan's. Dr.Erani, Diakonove (the history of ancient world),Maxim Gorky, Sholokhov. all their books were handing in the circle of students in 60's and 70's. I had so many friends who were members of Mojahedins, Fadaeyans and tudeh party. Many of reds were targeting factories and some were targeting small villiages for their political agenda and provoking people against shah. Samad Behrang and Mahmood dolat abadi  were  those who were targeting villiages for their political activities. Some were targeting liberaries and putting their "red" books in those liberaries. Some were looking for the illusion of Mosaddeq democratic government. They all had one thing in common. To be against shah was sign of being intellectual. Only person who were writing pro shah articles in Kayhan daily newspaper was a gentleman by the name of FARHAT GHAEM MAGHAM.  

What are you talking about? I never voted to Islamic Republic or never followed khomaini.

   you are making false assumption and as a result you reach false conclusion.

Seems you forgot what you wrote last week or so. Please read your write up clearly. This is what you wrote:

"....in 1979, the majority of pro-Khomeini mob emphasized on his "religious convictions" as "mo'men" to dismiss the concerns of those who demanded checks and ballances on his power while Khomeini himself expressed his commitment to democracy" Arj

That is crystal clear that you blame "MOB" as a undemocratic institute in our society even though shah expressed commintment to democracy...sorry I meant khomaini expressed his commitment to democracy. so you deny the role of ruler and you put your emphasize on the people. This is your writing,not mine. yes, I agree,it doesn't matter what ruler is on power.... the pro shah mob,sorry I meant pro khomainie mob... are the ones who dismiss the concerns of those who demanded checks and balances on his power.

what I was asking from you why those mob acting like that.? even though ruler is democratic? That is the core issue. To my knowledge, it is "education" and "family structure" or rather "Iranin family structure". One man show is characteristic of our society. I asked you frequently how many times you father in your family asked you or appreciated your opinion when he was making decision as you were growing up. you keep ignoring my question and repeating the same old song that there were only one party "rastakheez". you talk about "sharing power" and I am asking you how many times your opinion were valued in your family of origin and how many times Mobser of the class "shared the power" with you when you were in the classroom during high school time? have you ever worked as a team in the class room.? You have to extend your horizon see the society from different angels and consider different variables and factors. Social science is dynamic and at the same time it is very complicated.

Amir Parviz

Happy to have met you, as well.  He's a riot, isn't he?  RIP, Carlin! But to be fair, the picture that he paints is hardly limited to united states.  Here is another classic -- they don't make them like that anymore:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiT30N6ti4

Arj

I think you will find the following paper of interest.  As a matter of fact, it even references the late Shah, and puts forward the same 'analysis'. What I found personally engaging was the overall thesis regarding complex system dynamics, the processes of change, and (if you will) the analytical horizon and reach of such systems.  The proposed general methodology for managing change, and reducing the probability of (catastrophic) outlier events through a systemic application of "allowing" small changes, is quite interesting. 

//jamesshinn.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/T... [Taleb/Blyth - Foreign Affairs] 

[aside: I found the caricature in the paper quite amusing for its candor vis a vis the German who does not have a seat at the table but is invited to look at the crystal ball .. The assembled set is, of course, the so called "international community".] 

"Why is it more the fault of Shah than that of Khomeini, you may ask?! It's because if Shah had not eliminated the secular political parties, a significant number of those people who were tired of Shah and his "Rastakhiz party" and rallied around Khomeini, would otherwise be dissolved in the process of national political discourse!" 

Both you and the authors of the above paper paint a picture of a binary political space in Iran. The authors also effectively imply that the Shah "killed the Communists".  (It is basically the same 'just so' analysis that you provide.)

"[H]aving no real democratic experience, were easily cunned by Khomeini who pretended to respect their democratic rights and did not! Whose fault is that? I'd say it's Shah's fault in the first place, and Khomeini's in second!"

I mentioned elsewhere that as a 13 year old it was evident that the referendum hoisted on Iranians was not entirely kosher.  I had no "real democratic experience", and was practically a child, so I am not sure what to make of your statement.  Common sense sufficed.

Perhaps my instinctive refusal to suspend disbelief was reinforced by having had the quite informative experience of seeing my Tudeh'i cousin chanting for Khomeini (while winking at me!) in the school yard.  I know for a fact that Communists were alive and kicking in Iran throughout the reign of the Shah.  Sure, they went underground, but they were active, and well organized, and of clear, indisputable, critical import to the business of getting a revolution going.  

Let's go back to what you said earlier:

"Why is it more the fault of Shah than that of Khomeini, you may ask?! It's because if Shah had not eliminated the secular political parties, a significant number of those people who were tired of Shah and his "Rastakhiz party" and rallied around Khomeini, would otherwise be dissolved in the process of national political discourse!"

Many have already touched on the fact that the Islamist element in Iran was highly active and organized well before the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Aryamehr, much less '53.  (I am certain you are well read in that regard.  I merely remind you of it in the interest of having a rational discourse -- and can one have reasonable discourse, much less governance, in the absence of reason, Arj?)  Point being that the Islam-ist/-ic element had their agenda and their support base, regardless.  There is nothing the Shah could have done about that, and as it should have been clear, Islamists (quite like the Communists) do not like to share power and are quite capable of demonstrating this preference through the use of terror and violence.

Another thing I want to point out is that in nearly all collective endeavors, a small core subset of the group represents the active, and leading element, of the collective effort (or movement).  In the "Islamic Revolution", the Left provided substantial resources and organization support to the effort (while winking, rather too optimistically as it turned out ...)  The Left wing was active, significant, and coordinating with the Islamist wing.

Another matter you also entirely ignore is the ideological bridge that elements such as Shariati erected to forge the above un-holy alliance.

In sum, you are reducing a highly complex reality to an effectively banal narrative; quite clearly you are most angry with our late King.  (CIA/FA/CFR, of course, are motivated by a natural reluctance to come clean and discuss their role in this affair -- it would cause wide spread cognitive dissonance in the global audience of the "enmity" between IRI and the West.  The stink was becoming noticeable even to the American bloggers as a matter of fact during the overthrow of Qaddafi.  On cue, IRI and West ratcheted things up and we're back on the official script again.) 

--

Shah committed errors.  He admitted so, himself.  Iran had issues.  (But Iran has had issues for quite a few centuries.)

What offends my sensibilities when hearing the vociferous denouncements of the late Shah of Iran's adversaries -- today or past -- is the willful ignorance of the historic condition of Iran, and, the contemporary global situation that the Iranian nation had to deal with, and navigate, respectively.

And I remind you: 

On Saturday, Dec 31, the President of United States of America SHAT on the constitution of the same, and, then elected to further B.S. the American public as to his "assurances" regarding his "interpretation" of the instrument of tyranny that has now become the "law of the land" in America.   

People, not systemic architectures, determine the course of nations.  Social frameworks of any kind can not save the ignorant and slumbering from the tyranny of the sociopathic element.  Sociopaths have been with us from the beginning -- Cain -- and are present to this day, in every nation, every land. 

Fair-mindedness and balanced outlook is a critical element of countering the sociopathic element.  They lack these qualities and will 'out' themselves.  I urge you to adopt a more balanced assessment of our historic condition.

And lacking such characteristics, a people will find themselves, again and again, in the clutches of tyranny.

(And should they do so, let them refrain from casting calumny on their deposed leaders, and let them look instead at themselves in the mirror.)  

[edit: minor cleanup] 

Joubin, Great Video's You Posted

LOL. You know why it's called The American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.  So True.  I'm glad I found you on IC, You are an Outstanding Co-Leader, Thanks for the Links, I also enjoy comments by Tabarzin, Oon Yaroo and some others.

arj........

o.k he took history to the grave.

how grave is majority of us Iranian that can not take any thing to the grave ? just our sorry asses; for not being part of the change of 1979  AND not being able to do any other changesin 2012!

Maziar

Re the question

Siavash, the generation that lived under the despotic rule of Shah (in absence of political parties, civil society institutions and electoral system...), having no real democratic experience, were easily cunned by Khomeini who pretended to respect their democratic rights and did not! Whose fault is that? I'd say it's Shah's fault in the first place, and Khomeini's in second! But definitely not people's fault! The reason that it's chiefly Shah's fault is that he took over a society with somehow vibrant political make up as a rookie, and managed to turn it into a one-party rule in which all other political entities, let alone opposition parties, were banned and told to either switch loyalties to his made-up party, or get their passports and leave the country!

In addition, he managed to turn the insignificant, yet well-organized Shia establishment into a political alternative -- by destroying all secular political entities -- which could flip the situation in its favour by attracting the majority of people who were disenchanted by Shah's despotic rule. Why is it more the fault of Shah than that of Khomeini, you may ask?! It's because if Shah had not eliminated the secular political parties, a significant number of those people who were tired of Shah and his "Rastakhiz party" and rallied around Khomeini, would otherwise be dissolved in the process of national political discourse! Hence, Khomeini would have remaind an obscured, backward, mid-rank clergy that he was!

With regards to your question as to "Who garanttee these people change over night in new establishment?" My answer is no one! That's what the democratic constitutions are for; which is to ensure the restoration or implementation of the democratic, civil and human rights of the nation over a set period of time (through a transitional government). Perhaps our people are never going to be like the Swiss, English or French people, but at least they can have equal rights and free vote that the people of India are afforded with even lower education, literacy and urbanization rates!

The reality (but let's not disturb the kids 2 much Amir Parviz!)

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL0CCphgmZ8

//youtu.be/acLW1vFO-2Q  

I would re-title the video, Shahs ability to speak to the future

Why?

And then uses it to detain, torture and kill Americans, does that make
him a leader of a democracy, I mean Is that the shinning becon "American
So-called Democracy" represents In the world?  Isn't the actual use of
absolute Power a quality associated with other forms of government, like
dictatorships?  I just adore the Candid & High Integrity based
nature of our Late Shah, he told the BBC, you guys write too much and
talk too much of your so called democracy and don't work enough.  Truth,
Integrity, Wisdom. Khoda Biamorze.(of course he was ridiculing the
deceitful and manipulative nature of their concerns for human rights and
democracy/ which were his own dreams for Iran)

Shah was great at answering history and by that I mean the hypocrits
that accused him of dictatorship. He was asked in another interview if
by having "so much" of the powers he had he wouldn't be guilty of
causing a folly of grandeur. LOL .... so his response which was no big
deal back then, but today a historical Gem was, Yes It might be possible
to commit folly, but lets look at my real record, I never invaded Iraq,
nor did I invade Afghanistan. Khoda Biamorze just for that timely
historical response.

On Hardwork, maybe the shah worked too hard for too many in his country,
upon reflecting on some of his peoples actions against him for his
efforts, succeses and overall triumphs.  Shah gave all Iranians & humanity a good record of our cultures and traditions capabilities for good, beauty and truth. We can proudly reflect for many years to come after light is restored.

you didn't address my questions Arj

Seems we are not communicating. On your 1st comment you put the weight on administration. In your 2nd comment from last week you put the weight on the people which I believed it is more logic al. Now, I resume my questions once again since you missed the first time.

Who are these mob? why they were acting undemocratically? what made them to switch side and act more democratically? Sounds like  it has nothing to do with shah, I am sorry I mean khomeini. His followers were NOT democratic. What we should do these people become democratic.? Who garanttee these people change over night in new establishment? Why Swiss people, Brits don't act this way and it is only in third world countries such as Egypt or Iran this "mob" act like that?

Thanks for making my case!

Siavash, this is exactly how the mess we're in was created; by one petty dictator (Shah) destroying all secular political parties, obliterating any chance of national discourse and running away while leaving a mess, followed by another petty dictator, Khomeini (who was turned into the main opposition figure, thanks to Shah's killing off all the secular alternatives) pretending to respect democracy while observing people's religioius principles and take advantage of the situation! Just like in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, the petty dictators provide the initial phase of the process by eliminating the secular opposition, hence leaving the Islamists as the only organized socio-political alternative, while upon the fall of the dictator, Islamists take over and have it their way as sson as they can eliminate their own opposition! All in all, let's hope that Egyptians and Tunisians have learned a lesson or two from Iranian people's experience!

Here you go again Arj

".....the petty dictators (in our case, Shah) allow an atmosphere of national discourse to create an equilibrium among the political parties." Arj

So here, it is the fault of petty dictators not to have democracy. Now, let's take a look at your other statement from one week ago.

"....in 1979, the majority of pro-Khomeini mob emphasized on his "religious convictions" as "mo'men" to dismiss the concerns of those who demanded checks and ballances on his power while Khomeini himself expressed his commitment to democracy" Arj

Here it is the fault of "mob" or rather Iranian people that we didn't have democracy, even though shah expressed his commitment to democracy. Did I say shah? , I am sorry, my mistake, I mean Khomeini. khomeini expressed commitment to democracy, but mob disregard khomeini's commitment to democracy.

Who are these mob? why they were acting undemocratically? what made them to switch side and act more democratically? Sounds like  it has nothing to do with shah, I am sorry I mean khomeini that these followers were NOT democratic. What we should do these people become democratic.? Who garanttee these people change over night in new establishment? Why Swiss people don't act this way and it is only in third world countries such as Egypt or Iran this "mob" act like that?

Dear Arj, Did you read my comment about education and Iranian family structure ?

it is beneficial to take some sociology courses in university since you are very much interested in institutionalizing democracy in Iran. Then you will know what we should do to achieve that objectivity.

Hirre, please for the love of god don't strongly believeanything

I just wrote you a long note on 2 points.  If you do the exercise you can only come to one concluson. You are a easily lied to & manipulated person that doesn't know anything about anything.  Do the exercise and you will gain something you don't have right now.  Self Respect.

hirre do you see your own lies/exagerations? 2 Parts

Part 1."who assumes sole and absolute power"... In all his years of being in power are you aware of any cases of him using absolute power?  He clearly abided by the law and never acted beyond the lawful powers given to him under the constitution. 

Hirre, For your own personal growth I want you to do an exercise, It is very important for you to do, its like when you don't know the meaning of a word and your parents ask you to get a dictionary find its meaning and explain that you understand it.  Okay, I want you you contact 2 Iranian Historians on Iran, 2 Foreign Historians on Iran, 2 Iranian Lawyers and 2 Non Iranian Lawyers. Total of 8 people that can give you their expert opinion, the more credible they are the better.  I want you to ask each of them if they can give you any cases where the shah either had or used absolute power.  Just one single case discovered out of 8 experts is enough. 

Part 2.  " since after Reza Shah he was "thrown out" of the country and lost his
power, but returned and re-instated himself through a coup."

Not sure what you mean here, due to Reza Shah comment.  As allied troops advanced to Tehran Parliament convened and made sure he was made King in place of his father, lawfully. So Not gained through force. Then in 1953, the prime mnister he had appointed used absolute powers not given to him by law and disolved parliament.  By Iranian constitutional Law, when parliament is dissolved the king has the lawful right to appoint his own prime minister.  It was his prime minister that gained more power through using absolute power, unlawfully.  Having him dismissed (after he dismissed parliament) and choosing a new prime minister was his constitutonal right, that he needed the military (and a foreign alliance with USA) to enforce the law is not the definition of a coup because he is enforcing the law!  Next step, shah was not kicked out, no one kicked him out.  He left Iran with his own safety/security team and with the aim of making alliances to respond to the breach of the constitution.  His next step was to order his armed forces and political allies within Iran to enforce the law and remove the prime minister who dictatorially tried to usurpe power.  That isn't reinstating himself by a coup, that is the shah unlawfully having his kingship undermined through a coup d'etat and then using his constitutionally given powers to appoint a new prime minister backed by his armed forces to enforce law.  If the army and his supporters were doing something that other than defending the constitution and the kings rights given to him by law, then in that circumstance which did not exist yes you could call it a coup, but defending and restoring the law is not a coup, whether done by a military or police force or not.

The truth takes lots of time to spread Hirre, once people have been brainwashed with lies and manipulation by the Main Stream Media, with few if any taking the side of the truth. As Churchill said a Lie will travel around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on, LOL, true.  But none the less the truth is the only thing that is worth repeating and getting people to realize, once people realize what the exact lies and manipulations are that they have let in, only then can they be set free.  It is my wish that you free Yourself and other Iraians themselves from their own Ignorance, which the main stream media has easily taken advantage of for corporate Interests, but you will need to take the next steps. I spent the time to write this, and asked you to ask experts on this, just so that you know that the official historical account produced by the BBC and then after 1979 by the US Mainstream media includig TIME is a manipulation/lie intended to cause great harm to Iranians that choose to allow lies in.  Both the use of the word dictator and the use of the word coup.  Now unless you do as I asked you and instead of making your mind up based on what you read you do it based on your own independent research with the names of who you spoke with, then you are not going to get far beyond the propaganda which too many Iranians are the victims of today.

I strongly believe the more

I strongly believe the more complex system you have, like communism or mix communism+islam, the sooner it will fall and at the same time as the world becomes more democratical and communication becomes easier, other former fundamentalistic parties must re-invent themselves in order to gain most of the power.

Almost all communist countries or mixed versions of them have re-invented themselves, but fundamentalistic regimes have not changed for the simple reason that a change in regime calls for a change in the religion and somehow that is tabu in islam...

The Iranian Mojahedin

//yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300052...

PMOI was not the only red

PMOI was not the only red party or the biggest... They've been famous because their initial reaction was violence to "oppression". But you have to see what they stand for.

If you have people who claim they have mixed islam and marxism, then you must ask yourself, how will that work out? Has there been any other successful attempts? Ghadaffi tried this with his little green book, what happened to him? There is one thing to just namedrop different idelologies and say you have the ultimate solution/mix, but to implement it is another thing.

In their case they would probably have to choose one or the other as Ghadaffy did. We would probably have a corrupt economical system (not so corrupt as current), but we would probably have a more socially balanced system for e.g. women because the PMOI were not as fundamentalistic as the mullahs. But this scenario if the PMOI would have got 100 % of the power and that there would be no wars or interference, which is highly unlikely...During their power (if we pretend they had 100% power from 1979) until now, dominant muslim parties (especially in Iran) would have been more moderate (see muslim parties today and 30 years ago), which would led to the fact that forces like Khomeini etc would not gain ultimate power and the region itself would not have a grand fundamentalistic leader who is in control of a country to worship.

Hirre

I agree religion is very dangerous. But you miss my point which is Iran under Rajavi would have been hell. Remember they wanted both Islam AND Marxism: they were Islamic Marxist.

Now say we had a secular red; I still don't agree with you. My belief is we'd get an Islamic regime after reds went.

So no, Iran would have been in a much better shape if the reds had the powe, which would led to their early fall, which in turn would lead to a better government, today, 2012...

How do you know this? You are assuming reds would have fallen. Maybe not. And what makes you think Islamists would not have taken over if the reds fell?

Remember in Afghanistan the force against reds was the Mojaheedin. It is a given that America would have funded a similar group in Iran. Meaning we would have our own Taliban now. 

Now thanks to IRI people are becoming secular. But if reds had taken over we would be at the beginning of an Islamic Republic with decades to go. Anyway I already said all I got. 

"I went into detail why

"I went into detail why absorbing Iran would have prevented Soviet downfall.", This is simply not true either. Soviet fall has no emphasize on resources gained from other countries, the fall of the Soviet was based on cor­rup­tion, bad poli­cies and poor plan­ning, the rigid, iso­lated
sys­tem of Soviet power with restricted move­ment and incred­i­ble
lev­els of bureau­cracy and so on... The US could profit from the cold war, which the Soviets could not due to several reasons, the economical collapse was basically built into the system, Iran would only delay it for some years, but as far as the long term situation for Iran, we would live in a more open Iran today if the soviets had interfered comparing to the mullah regime...

This fear of the reds (initially started by the west) has led to the fact that many other bad elements (far worse) had time to grow in Iran. The shah was unfortunately dancing after what the US dictated when he could simple understand that iranians no matter which economical ideology they chose would always be iranians...The mullahs actually used this as a weapon, but they saw the other side of the coin: people's religious faith, which they exploited severly...

"I want to show it was

"I want to show it was doomed after Bakhtiyar no matter which way it went.", this is simple not true if you refer to the fact that Iran was doomed either way it went...

In the long term it is more dangerous for states to become religious than communist states. History has proven this! It takes a lot of generations to wash of religious insanity. Communism either fails directly or has to adapt itself, like China... So no, Iran would have been in a much better shape if the reds had the power, which would led to their early fall in the 90's (after the collapse of the Soviet union), which in turn would lead to a better government, today, 2012...

Hirre

You obviously did not read my post. I went into detail why absorbing Iran would have prevented Soviet downfall. Would you please read it.

VPK

You forget the fact that the Soviet union fell after a while and many of its satellite states became independent which led to the fact that economy and stability led to prosperity in those countries, e.g. int Polen... If you ask anybody in Polen what they think of communism, everbody will tell you they hate it. If you ask iranian what they think of the  IR today and after its gone, there will be ~5% who prefers it... So no, it would not have been the same thing, not even close...

What if

What if the revolution had gone the leftist way. The Mullahs got outmaneuvered and Marxists won? I ask this because so many revolutionaries still pretend it was a good idea.

I want to show it was doomed after Bakhtiyar no matter which way it went. A leftist regime would have almost 100% been allied to Soviets just like Nicaragua. This would have brought Soviet reach down to Persian Gulf. And provided it with oil revenue. That would have changed the whole regional situation. Putting Soviets in a much stronger position:

• Soviets would not need to invade Afghanistan. They already had the crown jewel why bother with the scraps. If they had decided to take Afghanistan they would use Iranian troops. Give them the motive of "reuniting" Iranians would fare better and be more motivated. Taking the pressure off Soviet troops and funding it with Iranian oil.
• The Iranian oil revenue would give them a boot. Plus access to Persian Gulf would have increased their reach. Very possibly avoiding their collapse.

Now imagine Iran headed by Rajavi duo as Soviet vassals. If we were lucky Soviets would realize they are nuts and replace them. But given their tolerance of Nicolae Ceauşescu I am not hopeful. It would have been a hell as bad as today.

...

"A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic)
who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes, but not always, with
military control or bribes) but without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch.[1] When other states call the head of state of a particular state a dictator, that state is called a dictatorship. The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency (see Roman dictator and justitium).[2]"

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator

By definition the shah was a dictator since after Reza Shah he was "thrown out" of the country and lost his power, but returned and re-instated himself through a coup. If he had not gained his permanent power through force he would be called an absolute monarch.

But these are all words, we all know what he did, what he didn't do and what he should have done...

Re "precious time"

Apfsm, look; I'm not in a habit of turning a discussion into personal squabbles. But since you (in spite of not being addressed in any of my comments) started it; I once again have to reiterate that you would be the last person I would seek advice from, much less orders!

P.S. Are you serious?! "...the largest opposition group to them within Iran." Are you actually claiming that supporters of Pahlavis are the largest opposition group in Iran?! Based on what research or opinion polls?

Arj MyTimes too precious to waste on a hopeless case. Sorry. : (

Focus your hate on the Mullahs.

Apfsm!

Apfsm, if you have something to disprove what I've argued below, by all means, I'm all ears and eyes! Otherwise, you'd be the last person on earth I would turn to for advice on life, especially considering the amount of time and cyber space you take to post your nonesensical drivels here!

Arj Jaan

"... petty dictators such as Shah, Mobarak, Ben Ali ..."

How can anyone take what you say seriously, making comments such as above?  Get real.

Simorg5555 I don't live in the USA

America/UK/France/Russia/China are not going to help us remove the regime.  The sooner you and VPK get the message, even if it is 33 years too late the sooner we can pass this lesson and move towards the real goal of liberating Iran from Mullahs and as Siavash so wonderfully said, Restore the Monarchy. 

As for VPK, he's a Republican, not a Monarchist.  He is intelligent enough to know that the Shah was not a Dictator, but refuses to give up on the Wests tried and succeeded manipulation on Iranians in 1979, this is because he is a Republican, not because of the truth or sincerity.  Due to his avatar and name "VPK" you are forgiven for thinking he is a Monarchist and understands that Monarchy is a critical part of the great and advanced secular progressive culture of Iran.

Gentlemen get a life, you're brand of has been revolutionaries

Is what gave us the IRI and you expect people to just give you credibilty?

Mostafa Rahbar: a MALE that forgets how progressive Shahs Iran was for Women, compared with before him.

Arj & HTG again 2 MALES who are also Beyond any help, no use teaching these guys as they will never pass any class no matter what. It's okay if you don't pay any attention, this class is not for you.  You get a golden star just for being around. : ) 

That we only deal with males against the Shah makes me wonder if the shah really got your goat by empowering women?  Is that what you were all really opposed to? At least Prove you care about Iran, by attacking the Mullahs in Power, not the largest opposition group to them within Iran.

Did he "escaped the situstion,"

Or the situation escaped him? Did shah had the vaguest clue what he was dealing with, when he went to TV and said, "I heard your voices." What kind of a respond was he expecting, and what did he actually get.

The case of a super big ego, in a situation with little to no  error permitted? Lethal combination.