History will be kind

On Reza Shah the Great


History will be kind
by Shah4Iran

As I tried to pay close attention to both the gossiping women and the head-strong men arguing about Iranian history and politics, I took a good look around and carefully analyzed the people who filled the host's home with drinks, jokes and roars of laughter. These people had always been my image of the Persian culture and heritage. Thinking further, I had an interesting thought-a question,rather: what makes the Iranian people greatly different and exception in regards to their neighbors? My earliest and most immediate thought was Reza Shah the Great.

The common and numerously repeated modernizing actions of Reza Shah are all well-known and, perhaps, drilled into the heads of Iranians supporting and against the deposed monarchy. Roads, education, railways, security forces, secularism and westernization (if it can even be called that) are all common attributes given to Reza Shah. Although all of these advancements were, in fact, directly related to the reign and new system of Reza Shah, the most important attribute of Reza Shah is never written or mentioned; Reza Shah forcefully opened the minds of the Iranian public to make them see the world from which they had been repressed from for centuries.

As a general statement, the majority of Iranians against the reforms of Reza Shah argue that the fashion in which he implemented reform was brutal and far too strong-handed in nature. Such reforms, in particular, included women's emancipation, the weakening of the clergy, the dispersion of Iranian tribes, education reform and also the anti-communist feeling his government possessed. In Iran's particular circumstance, the majority of these strong-handed reforms are able to be justified when observing objectively.

The women of Iran had been confined to the home for centuries. As sheep and cattle, they were expected to obey their master and be dutiful. The extreme influence of Islam on the Iranian way of life had made Iran appear more as an Arab nation than the great empire of Cyrus the Great. When the veil was banned and women were forced to leave the home without covering themselves, they were forced into a necessary realization and awakening. Advocates of religious freedom see this act of Reza Shah's to have been highly inappropriate and offensive to reverent women of the Muslim faith. Stepping away from the boundaries of political correctness, it can be argued that such an assessment is far from the reality and true purpose that Reza Shah intended. As a father to the nation, Reza Shah had a responsibility to do what was necessary for the nation's progress. Integrating women into society was one such action towards progression. Old habits die hard and Reza Shah was the one who broke them. Iranian women who criticize this action of Reza Shah always seem to forget that it was that very action that has even allowed them to voice their opinions freely as individuals amongst the Iranian community today. As children are forced to go to school at an early age when they have no desire to do so, Reza Shah forced the women of Iran to integrate into society in order to create a better future.

Secularism and the weakening of the clergy as well as education reform all go under the same category. Before the kingship of Reza Shah, the clergy was a powerful entity supported financially by the government and believers. Common customs of the time show us that people's every-day lives were, in some odd way, connected to the clergy. People consulted the clergy regarding financial issues, social issues, blessings and other every-day happenings. Since the public was vastly connected to the clergy by a strong sense of faith, the government controlled the clergy by paying them large sums of money to support and back up the government. In essence, the clergy and the government were directly related. Reza Shah sought to gain the power of the clergy and replace Iranian religiosity with a sense of national pride. For this reason, maktabs,or religious schools, were shut down and modern education became mandatory for all children. Reza Shah wanted to educate the masses and loosen the grip on religious ideology. By forcefully taking the dependence on the clergy of the people away, Reza Shah created a new generation of less religious and innovative citizenry. Universities became accessible to the public and were no longer a luxury of royalty and nobility. Reza Shah's new nation was going to be a red rose amongst the thorny bushes of the Middle East.

Instead of criticizing Reza Shah, we must strive to understand the time in which he ruled, the motives he carried and the vision he saw for Iran. When we think of the banishment of the veil, we must think of the women of today and how greatly it has impacted them. When we think about the radical dismissal of the clergy, we must remember the the independence Iranians gained mentally and financially from an entity that only sought to generate money. When we think of the brutal dispersion of the Iranian tribesmen, we must remember that our boarders are still intact because of Reza Shah's forced assimilation of the tribesmen. As we ponder the injustices of the left wing citizenry of Iran who pledged their allegiance to the USSR, we must remember half of our preserved Azerbaijan and the sliver of the Caspian Sea we can still claim as Iranian waters. History will be kind and just to our King, Reza Shah the Great, who took Iran and created a proud culture, people and nation.



Mash, Iran passed top 10 and was on its way to top 4

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Though that is just GDP, sum of the entire economy.  Capitalism as China is also experiencing takes  a couple of decades of time to restore equality of opportunity for a new country on the rise, so the down side would be inequalities which are unavoidable or have not been avoided by any country so far.  At least we had the growth. 

How can one talk evenly to ones with such little wisdom? Civil society wasn't at the stage you think it was, I'd hallucinate less than 5% could read and newspapers were not on the top of Reza's Iranian advisers agenda, though by the time of his son every major city had several papers.

Mash Ghasem

Condescending megalomaniacs: just like their 'leaders'

by Mash Ghasem on

Amirparvis, you must be very uniformed of Economic theory or history of Iranian political-economy,  simply because every major economist at Planning Ministry (Vzarat Barnameh Rizy) back then would admit that shah's gargantuan economic 'push' to make  Iran the tenth economy of the world WILL NOT WORK. That was back in early 70's. Your one-sided, obtuse comparison of GDP, with a total disregard for anyother aspect of economy (macro and micro levels) is a testement to your ignorance of political-economy of development, especially as it relates to developing, third world countires. And why opposing tyranny is consider 'hatred.' I could oppose all tyrants in Iran without any personal baggage on them. Do historians who dismiss Pahlavis,  also'hate' their subject.

There's a difference between objective, realistic, balanced assesment of the Pahlavis, which points out to the current mess, as a product of 35 years of monarchial mis-managment through a consistent series of historical events: '53 coup, promoting Kashani type politicians, ceration of SAVAK, SAVAK scums' cooperation with Hojatieh type scum, creation of Rashtakhiz party,...

S.F. Thank you for your commentary. At the same time your text would have carried a lot more substance if you could have identified your sources. Concerning Pahalvis not stealing anything from any one: Isn't true that Reza Gholdor's original family name was Savad Kohi, and he stole the name from aother family with that name.

There's not a problem with confistication of unjustly accumulated properties, as long as its done according to laws of the land, and the result is distributed amongst those who need it most. How did a simple Ghazagh with barley the clothes on him as his personal property , became one of the largest, some would say the biggest land owner in the country.

In a free Iran, not only everyone is entitled to think and write whatever they please, they're also entitled to organize, dress and basically behave as they please, individually or collectively, as long as they don't use violent means, and don't disrupt anyone elses' freedoms. Basically like the US, Canada, Australia,...

VPK: Not sure who you think you're talking to, or what you're talking about. I dare to say whatever the heck I please. You don't like it, don't read it.

Your Reza Gholdor aka Adolph Reza Khan was far from a saint, to get so emotional over him. Just pay attention to the portrait of Hitler still in Niavaran Palace, to understand how deep the affection for that Nazi scum ran in the royal court.

All and all basically almost all you monarchists are hopelss and beyond redemption. The only reason anyone respondes to all these most ridiculous historical fabrications is to remind you all, we will never forget or forgive any crime against our people, by it by IR, Pahlavi,....

Oon Yaro: Again another insntance of monarchist sophistry: All Iranian people were either hopeless backward, uneducated people, or they were Ghajar nobility with a vengence against Pahlavis. Keep in mind that Iran before Pahlavis had a revolution and during , and after that revolution we were witnessed to some of the most advanced social critiques, social movements and basically very progressive culture through out the land. The dark, very dark corrupt, brutal 'rule' of Reza Gholdor PUT AND END TO THAT.

Just comapre the number of newspapers, political parties and civic association during the Constitutional Revolution and during Adolph Reza Khan reign, he practically destroyed Iranian civil society.

But then again talking to you monarchists about civil society, is like describing Ave Maria to a deaf person: YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.


Oon Yaroo

Folks with all due respect, if it weren't for Reza Shah and

by Oon Yaroo on

Son's effort all of you and I mean all of you Pahlavi bashers would be

a) Wearing bed sheets as your attires,

b) Wearing dentures as your teeth and applying zoghal for whitening them,

c) Riding a four-legged animal/camel as your means of transportation,

d) Carrying a beel and kolang as the tools of your profession,

e) Carrying a tattoo on your wrist as the method of your identification,

f) Using your thumb & ink as your method of signature & authentication,

g) Holding your hand on a kerosene lamp as a method of keeping warm and cooking,

h) Exchanging your goats for someone else's wheat as the method of your denomination,

i)  Standing on a manual plow behind your Ox and smelling its gas as the method of unearthing your field for the next year's plantation,

j) just like your neighbors the Afghan folks and I  am going to stop right there...!

Thank you!


Well put Mr Ferdows

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

too many agenda driven haters & liars, enough for 1000 years of nonsense.


What I realize after anwsering Arj is not All People Praise

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

The pahlavi's.  But all Wise people do.


mr ferdows

by shushtari on

wonderfully and eloquently put.

do not pay attention to the remnants of the qajar dynasty who are huffing and puffing here.....they must have lost some land back then or they're related to an akhoond who wanted to keep iran in the dark ages during that time

I really enjoyed reading your comments....keep them coming

javid iran 


Arj we all know for certain you're no economist.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Or an accountant, if you were either you'd not be a pahlavi hater.

"My question for Shahollahis with regards to the miracle of oil still
stands: If Iran (minus Reza Khan) was to compare with Afghanistan, then
Would Reza Shah be able to build roads and bridges without any oil
revenue? If Yes, how and with what funds?!"

Both iran and Afghanistan are very rich countries, not oil and gas but they have mineral reserves, iran has 10 times more its share than its share of the world population, even more for afghanistan. This is why we never need to go to anyone elses mines for anything ever.  If you understood economics at all you would realize that every country has assets and has to then get many people trained and employed before it can access those assets. For the UK it was water, rivers, farmland, milk, meat, then later steel, ship building etc etc.

As a pahlavi hater you clearly wish to take away credit from leadership that made excellent use of national assets.  If your logic had any merit to it economically, you would logically conclude that because iran has oil today the mullahs could produce such miracles, well guess what they can't do a thing despite 1 trillion dollars from oil in the last 3 years or so alone.

The truth is Iran did far better with the resources she had under the pahlavi monarchy.  The petro dollar was what the pahlavi's were focussed on moving Iran away from, that is through diversification, hence the industrialization of the 70's, they started building steel industries, mines, dams etc etc that all added to the wealth of the nation and its independence.  You must know the truth, The pahlavi's did not benefit so much from oil income, like the mullahs who during 32 years have received after inflation is factored in 11 times more oil income!!!!!!!!!! 

So many people praise the pahlavi's because they earned it. Irans economy was not 4 times the size of turkeys due to oil, oil was around 50% of it, the other 50% was manufacturing. Who am I trying to kid, logic and reasoning doesn't work with warped minds and delusional people.  Any 9 year old could tell you look at nigeria and see how the people with oil In Nigeria, Iraq, etc etc are living and how good we had it with the pahlavi's but a hater can't even think honestly/fairly.


Reading is a good thing for everyone

by Sohrab_Ferdows on

The stories about extension of D'Arcy agreement with no real change is nothing but a lie that is manufactured and circulated by some clueless Iranian opposition elements of the Pahlavi era and some remnants of Kadjari establsihment. Details of that event have been recounted and documented for the record in different books by different people from the same era (not necessarily friendly towards Pahlavis).  Thanks to availability of many resources today, it is harder to deceive people with baseless stories and impressive names and titles especially of the ones with links to darkest period in modern history of Iran.

The extension of oil agreement which was achieved under pressure from Reza Shah through parliamentary negotiation under leadership of Mr. Hassan Taghizadeh, provided Iran with best possible gains under such circumstances that nation was in urgent need for economic resources to implement necessary reforms. This is just a lie that all reforms which were carried out by Reza Shah were initiated before him. Kadjar Kings just wanted more money for themselves from oil revenue to spend in lavish trips to Eueopean countries and their casinos. As far as judiciary, considering that judiciary reform was the most important demand that had been put forward by people during Constitutional Revolution; it is uncanny if not ridiculous to believe that anyone intended to do anything about that before Reza Shah became the head of state. He was the one to provide a firmly secure environment that was needed for implementing such reforms.

Reza Shah pushed for reforms right from the beginning and accomplished so much in a period of just 16 years while even those who cooperated with him in the beginning and got very close to him at some point, like Teymourtash and a few others, tried to back-stab him and conspire against him. People like Nosranol-doleh Firouz (British candidate to replace Ahmad Shah and one of the architects of infamous 1919 Anglo-Iranian agreement in which Iran would become a colony of Britain) were menace to the establishment and to the nation with (at least) 95% of illiteracy. They were like a poison to the reforms which were necessary to drag that nation out of misery. Nosratol-doleh's legacy lived through his son Mozafar Firouz (who had sworn to take revenge from Pahlavis for his father's death) and also his revengeful sister Maryam Firouz (a member of Tudeh Party's central committee and wife of Mr. Kianouri, the party leader) who finally succeeded in celebrating the fall of Pahlavis in revenge of Nosratol-doleh's death who died while in prison.

Naming a character like Nosratol-doleh Firouz as a noble figure who helped in reforms and glorifying figures like Teymourtash is clear indication of either lack of information about history or biased views. This of course is not new. There are many among Iranians who have been selling second hand baseless materials through well versed essays which may easily mislead uninformed impressionable crowds and provide ill-intended pseudo-intellectuals with ammunition to stir endless and useless debates on unfounded repeat arguments. People like Teymourtash and others were in charge of different positions in government before Reza Shah but they were never able to accomplish anything even if they had the intention. Reza Shah paved the grounds for progress and created opportunity for others to contribute but some of the same people who enjoyed his trust (like Nosratol-doleh and Teymourtash) conspired against him instead! No one can claim that Reza Shah carried out reforms single handedly without using skilled people but claiming that he had nothing to do with reforms because others had some roles in them is pure nonsense.

One of the repeat stories that are often brought up by some people who try to put down the value of the work done by Reza Shah is about him gathering wealth by stealing from people and taking people's lands! There has never been a shred of evidence to the allegations of Reza Shah's so called wealth in foreign banks and as far as "people's lands", none of these critics of Reza Shah have ever explained which people they are talking about and which people had "lands" in those days? It is obvious, that no one other than members of Kadjar oligarchy and wealthy aristocrats and big mullahs owned anything in Iran. Iranian people were mostly hungry and could not afford one real meal while most of fertile lands in the country was owned and controlled by a bunch of Kadjars and their servants without proper production and with least benefit to the people.

Taking over some of those lands by Reza Shah (for a just cause), provided opportunity for many Iranians to work and turn them into productive lands which were later distributed among those who worked on them (not the aristocrats who fed on people's misery). Even today in some of most advanced nations, in certain cases, belongings of some criminals could be confiscated by governments for the interest of public.

Drawing similarities between Reza Shah and those who are in Islamic government's military and Revolutionary Guard today merely based on a claim (with unclear foundation) that they consider Reza Shah as a role model is nothing but playing with smoke and mirror to prove non-existant points and come up with all sorts of unrealistic, self gratifying, conclusions.

One commonality that we find in most writings from those who like to discredit Pahlavis is to apply 21st century standards for democracy and human rights in European and American societies to judge what happened about a century ago in Iran while themselves show no tolerance (a main ingredient for democracy) towards others who think differently even when they enjoy living in a democratic nation today! This can only be attributed to lack of touch with realities of the life. For those who are interested to know what kind of nation Iran was during those days, I suggest reading "siahat-nameh ebrahim-beyg" from Zein-al Abedin Maraghehee (one of many books available on the subject) to understand the enormous task that someone like Reza Shah was facing at that time. This book is not about any shah. It is a short story about Iranian society, during the years leading to Constitutional Revolution, from the view point of someone who travelled back to his homeland (for a pilgrimage to Emam Reza's shrine) after being away for a long period of time.

An interesting point which can easily be observed in the comments under this topic (and is common among all the writings of similar nature) is the hypocricy of blaming Reza Shah (without naming anyone else) for anything that is negative in their view while attributing all positives to anyone (including an architect of a plan to colonize Iran by British) but him!


Re abuse

by Arj on

Dear VPK, I do believe that you're entitled to your opinion -- even if it's an unsolicited judgment on me!

However, with regards to your question about what constitutes abuse, I would say breach of human rights, wrongful imprisonments, toture and murder of political dissidents, trampling all over the constitution, creating an atmosphere of fear to rule the nation under. One of the embodiments such fear and gross breach of human rights was Reza Shah's infamous and much  feared state torturer and executioner, Dr. Ahmadi whose mere mention would have sent chills down the spine of any political prisoner, and who took the lives of many dissidents by administering lethal injections. Murder in cold blood of patriot thinkers and writers such as Mirzadeh Eshghi and Farrokhi Yazdi after extensive torture (e.g. the barbaric sewing of their lips together to teach others a lesson not make the wrong speeches again) and burying alive dissident journalists... are another example of such abuse!

Nonetheless, this may be acceptable to you as eliminating Tudehis and "enemies of state." But bear in mind that, first of all, there were no Tudehis back then, for the Tudeh party was not even established then yet! Secondly, if you mean murder of socialist and other opponents (for not all of them were leftists) of Reza Gholdor was the right thing to do, then you condone the murder of dissidents and political prisoners (albeit Tudehi or leftist)! So, if the murder of political prisoners and dissidents is establised as an acceptable practice, why should you object to same practice under IRI? After all, they claim to eliminate the "enemies of the state" (and ironically, majority of the ones executed were leftists!)

Can you see the irony here, or are you blinded by your fantasies of the distant Pahlavi land in your rear view mirror?! Your logic in this regard (or lackthereof) is so laughable that it's not even sad!

P.S. My question for Shahollahis with regards to the miracle of oil still stands: If Iran (minus Reza Khan) was to compare with Afghanistan, then Would Reza Shah be able to build roads and bridges without any oil revenue? If Yes, how and with what funds?! And if the answer is no, then the Saudis and other Arab rulers are even greater than Reza Khan and his son, for they have managed to transform a desert into a wonderland (thanks to the miracle of the Petro-dollar The Great)!


amirparviz.secular joon

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

I mean no offence, but please, if you respond to any of  my comments, at least read the comment and understand it first before responding. Then, and only then, I'd be more than happy to have a meaningful debate with you. untill then.....

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."


RG Don't glorify abject failure and cripling poverty

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

have you been to Cuba?  Please go and live there for 1 year and I know exactly who will be running with their tail between their legs, of course if they haven't already eaten it to keep themselves fed.  We already had a taste of a democratic movement like cuba, with Khomeini and back in the 1980's the people were willing to die for him, today the people want to pee on their graves, including fidel, stalin, ho-chi-min, khomeini and others.

Thats the point here Roozbeh, years later people want to pay their respects to people like the Shah and his father because of what they gave of themselves and the results of their work for future generations.  Still much of the good of the late shah has not disappeared, not even after the mullahs.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Truthseeker9

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I see where you are coming from. But some of us have our standards really low. After 33 years of death and hopelessness I take Shah. Yes he was a dictator and that will bring the wrath of Amirparviz on me :-)

Nevertheless I lost more than one family member is this idiotic 33 years. Hence I will take Shah over this ***. At least I would have several more living family. Plus not be scattered to the four corners of the world as we are now.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Arj define abuse

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


If you call building universities; hospitals and roads abuse then fine. But to me that is not abuse. It is modernization. If you call resisting Toodeh and Soviet stooges trying to break Iran to pieces abuse then whatever.

You are an idealist and other idealists will not settle for less than perfect. But to me perfect is the enemy of "good enough". We did not get perfect so you guys robbed us of good enough. Now we have nothing. I will take bread over shit; don't need kabab.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


The Poland thing was a cheap shot. It is not the fault of Iran if Hitler had some delusions. Reza Shah was not responsible for Hitler and his actions. If you read history Iranian officials did a lot to save Jews.

Reza Shah prayed as a synagogue in Isfahan, Don't you dare compare Reza Shah to Hitler. It makes me really sick having them compared. Yes Reza Shah accepted help from Germany. Why not they were about the only ones willing to help Iran.


نکو گوی گر دیرگوئی چه غم


The guy carries doctora title to his name and doesn't realize this
simple fact. Similary many of our professors and intellectuals followed
Khomaine in 1979. Some were graduated from Sorbone university. They were
thinking mullahs will make Iran like a paradise. Many people on this
site after 32 years still don't get it. Reza Khan with no Academic
education was much better off than those intellectuals.


گل گفتی سیاوش خان

امیدوارم توهین تلقی نشود
ما  همه ایرانی هستیم  منتها
با اندیشه های متفاوت که این هم
خوبی هائی دارد
و باز بشنویم از سعدی

علم چندانکه خوانی
چون عمل در تو نیست نادانی
نه محقق بود نه دانشمند
چارپائی بر او کتابی چند
آن تهی مغز را چه خبر
که بر او هیزمست یا دفتر

سخندان پرورده پیر کهن
بیندیشد آنگه بگوید سخن
مزن تا توانی به گفتار دم
نکو گوی گر دیرگوئی چه غم  

Mash Ghasem

Is that why he killed Eshghi,and sewed the lips of Farokhi Yazdi

by Mash Ghasem on

It's amazing that even a self-professed anglophile can't remember Seyed Zia. People with such deep amnesia, usually run into deeper problems.

One last point only between you and I, if you don't mind. As far as the great English culture is concerned, for an Anglophile (with all due respect) you're doing a lousy job. English culture is much greater than two-bit politicians and luxury cars, how about all those great novelists,poets, singers,....But don't mention any of this last paragraph to Uncle Jaan Napoleon, he might have have a heart attack if he finds I said something positive about  Engelisiiha!


One common characteristic of Tin Pot Dictators....

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

Like our own Reza gholdor, or Saddam Hossein and Gaddafi is that their ridiculous claims of "power" and "popularity", is shatterd to pieces in face of a foreign attack. When their armed forces who are so good at killing, raping and beating the unarmed, defenceless men, women and children, by large surrender in face of an attack by a disciplined foreign army.

On the other hand, we have the likes of Ho-Chi-Min and Fiedel who have such inner strength derived from  public support, that in face of a foreign aggression, not only their armed forces, but their entire nation, raise to the cause of defending the motherland, and send the overwhelmingly powerful foreign aggressor running all the way back home,  with it's tail between it's legs...

Do you know the difference between the former and the latter? The former (Reza gholdor) was appointed by foreign powers. The latter (Fiedel and Ho-Chi_Min) rose from the hearts of their nation, representing nothing but the will of their people.

Now keep defending your  dictators, be it Reaz& his son, or khamenei & his son, for eternity. But in the end of the day,  these cowardly mass murderers are nothing but foreign appointed spineless tin pot dictators, who have absolutely no support amongst the masses of Iranian people. 

Long Live People's  Democracy. Down with Dictatorship



رضاشاه قهرمان انقلاب مشروطه است


Well my dear Mash Ghasem, those who know a little better than you and I beg to differ. //ajoudani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=27 By the way according to MI6 sources, the Brits merely gave Reza Khan their moral support and nothing else becuase the incompetent Qajar kings and clan were not only destroying the country but their interests too. Sadly , for the Brits, they discovered that Reza Khan (Shah) was only good for the country and not for their inetrests. But it was too late, hence he had to go :( cheers buddy 


Mash you are my favourite therapist

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Did you mean Adolph or Rudolph? Rudolph is the one with the red nose that does all the hardwork and helps Santa deliver all the presents to the children of the world. Since we were the most advanced country before Reza Khan how do you suppose he could manipulate our thriving democracy?

I thought I had baggage from the last 32 years, you've been holding on for nearly a century of grievances in favor of times that were so great that the pahlavi period set them back you say, iranians who are not even monarchists have a problem with that description, because irans future used to be bright with the pahlavi's and its present was always getting better. 


People vs rulers

by Arj on

With the exception of Karim Khan Zand, who refrained from calling himself a king (hence the self-declared "Vakil-ol-Ro'aya" title), and the early period of Parthian rule (Ashkanids whose governance was influenced by the Greek notions of democracy), Iran has been ruled with an iron fist for more or less 3000 years. Some of our rulers commenced thier conquest of the land with fierce rage which over time, gave way to remorsefull humility. In other cases, some started off as liberators and ended up as feared tyrants!  

As a defeated nation, we have a tendency to turn our rulers and abusers into larger-than-life, mythical figures. A proneness stemming from an inner push/pull struggle deep within! Just take a look at the names we choose to give our children; Eskandar, Changiz, Ali, Omar, Teymur... Much like an abused child (whose relationship with the authority figure starts on sentimental notions, but soon turning into an abusive bondage which results in violent ends), our nation, throughout history, has had a mixed feeling of fear amalgomated with respect for abusive authority!

Nonetheless, what an overwhelming majority of us don't realize, is that in a modern world, this authority figure (whether in the from of king, Emam or supreme leader) is no longer necessary for us to govern ourselves. We are the king-makers, hence we are the kings and supreme leaders! Kings and leaders are not the owners of our nation, but it's rather the other way around; they are supposed to be the servants of our land. We no longer have to be grateful to any two-bit thug or charlatan and turn them into idols! We deserve to demand resposibilty and accountabiltiy from those whom we choose to run the nation's affairs. We also deserve to have the right to dismiss and terminate a leader whom we no longer find fit to lead us. For Iran and Iranians are nobody's property, but the patrons of those who are chosen to lead us!

Mash Ghasem

No one has yet refuted the fact that Reza mir panj, was chosen

by Mash Ghasem on

by the Brits, hence assigning Seyed Zia to lead him in 'his,' coup.

What all our enthusiastic monarchist forget is that, before Adolph Reza Khan we had a little thing called THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION. Compare and contrast Iranian Constitutional Revolution with all the countries of the region, and you might see why Iran was way ahead of all of them. All this push for modernization and industrialization was started back then. So in retrospect, tis two bit-punk, your esteemed 'great one,' was nothing but a johhny come lately.  The only thing Adolph Reza Khan did (with the aid of the Brits, M-16 and Seyed Zia) was to manipualte his way to power.

Siavash thanks for reminding us just how much Hitler cared about 'structures and development.' He also had some structural development in Poland, one of them called Aushwitz-Birkenau.  

Obvuiosly tolerance and admiration for Fascism and Nazis was not only limited to Adolph Reza Khan, but it includes many of his apologists as well. May god (if it exists) save all of you.


... More about Reza shah the Great.

by Siavash300 on

"What sets Iran apart from Afghanistan, is the miracle of oil, not that of Raza Shah's"    " What sets Saudi Arabia apart from Yemen, is oil wealth, not the degree of competency of King Abdulaziz or Fiasl" Arj

Kazakhstan has oil and women are selling their bodies to make a living. High degree of poeverty. It is common expression that anyone wants to marry several women go to Kazakhstan. It is a Poor country in south of Russia even though they have plenty oil. They need U.S experts to go there and invest money there to extract their oil. There is huge differences between Iran and Afghanistan as far as culture, Art and degree of modernization and level of education concerned, but there are not that much difference between Saudi Arabia and Yaman in the eyes of any neutral observer. We can conclude the oil is not the major factor for one country to be more progressive than another. Management or mismanagement is the more important factor.  

    The most remarkable aspect of Reza Khan character is his "intuition". Even though he didn't possess Masters or Ph.d degee, he was able to see Islamist and mullahs stifle the progress of our country. He had a firm reaction towrard them. Is that make him thug? I don't think so. He had zero tolerance for khaens who were enemy of Iran. Many Iranians such as Dr. Masood Kazemzadeh who has an avatar with suit and tie doesn't realize his owes that attire to Reza Khan who unified men's clothing to Europeans standards. The guy carries doctora title to his name and doesn't realize this simple fact. Similary many of our professors and intellectuals followed Khomaine in 1979. Some were graduated from Sorbone university. They were thinking mullahs will make Iran like a paradise. Many people on this site after 32 years still don't get it. Reza Khan with no Academic education was much better off than those intellectuals.


 Hitler loved Iran dearly. Not Reza khan loved Nazis. That was not the other way around as some people are thinking. Hitler wanted the best for Iran because he believed Iran is the origin land of Aryan. He clearly says that in his book. He had a big plan after victory over soviet to built many areas in kavier of Iran. He wanted those area to be structured and developed.


this dude kadivar is a real piece of work

by spatima on

LOL, i think you totally failed to my read the argument. btw. i am not going to even start discussing your references, though the one on burke did give me a good chuckle.

before we get into a discussion you need to be on the same semantics level. i refer to you to your own counter argument ''republicanism is not ...'' . 

 learn to properly analyze and deduce arguments before going on the net and copy pasting bunch URLS. not everyone is without a university degree like yourself.

"difference between educated and uneducated is that the former has limits.''





p.s please do check out your own rediculous links once in a  while

 In hope of a Free, Independent, Democratic and Secular Iran

Mash Ghasem

Go and find out who Seyed Zia was, then write a poem

by Mash Ghasem on

for him, your true  'king maker.'


as a British agent ?

by rashid on

بشنویم از سعدی

کرا زشتخوئی بود در سرشت
نبیند ز طاووس جز پای زشت

بود خار و گل با هم  ای هوشمند
چه در بند خاری ، تو گل دسته بند 



by Truthseeker9 on

I agree appreciation of Reza Shah's achievements for that time, despite his thuggery, do not make a Monarchist. But the rest of the comments from the monarchists should be framed and put in the Khazi. I mean, some have already decided that Monarchy is necessary and what the interview questions will be. How both frightening and hilarious.

Especially love the one "Do I trust you to not lie."

God help us.

Mash Ghasem

History will not be kind to two-bit agents of foreigners

by Mash Ghasem on

Reza Mir Panj began his career as a British agent with the help and guidance of Seyed Zia, and its amazing that no one here, ever even mentions that name.

As if the Brits didn't have an agent to direct and guide Reza Mir Panj, to secure British interest in Iran.

Accordign to Seyed Zia , "Reza Khan" was so scared of the few shot that were fired on the night of his coup, that Seyed Zia had to push him through the door. So much for courage.

And how did he end? If he had such a popular base, why didn't he challenge the Allied Forces on removing him from power. Such an idea, a popular protest against his removal, would have never came to his mind, because he knew through and through he was an agent of foreigners. They brought him tp power and they took him out.


What is it in our culture that turns, utter losers into mythical figures?

We take a two bit Ghazagh and turm him into a reza shah kabir!

We take a two bit mullah and turm him into imam khomeini!





by Simorgh5555 on


I propose a Knight of the Round Table in Iran where people who have distingushed themsleves in society chose a constitutional monarch who fulfills an apolitical but largely ceremonial role. He should be given powers to 'advise' on issues and policies whcih are not legally binding but the final decision should be made by the Prime Minister and the legislature. The role of the King is for life unless he choses to abdicate. Clear rules of checks and balances should be established to prevent the King from encroaching on the Prime Ministers powers and for the Prime Minister to try and topple the King. The whole Mossadeq v Shah contents should never re-emerge. A King who overreaches his powers 'should be foreced to abidicate' and a Prime Minister who opposes the constitutional position of the monarch should be forced to resign.  

Eelcted monarchies out of the question? Is Pope Benedict 'ruler' of the Vatican (King by analogy) after being elected by his peers? Or even 'Shaholah' Khemenei chosen by the Council of Guardians in the IR?

Elected monarchs in popular fiction?

Queen Amidala of Star Wars the first 'elected Queen' 



Esfand Aashena

We are name calling each other on both sides of this debate.

by Esfand Aashena on

As I first suspected we'd do from the very beginning.  So don't any of you on either side give yourself any credit and factor yourself out of this formula!  You are as backward as you claim the other side is! 

Everything is sacred

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


FIrst of all appreciation of Reza Shah does not mean being Monarchist. One may be very much supportive of him but not a Monarchist. But we may need a King to pull us ouf of this IRI shit.

I also agree that heredity is not going to play big in Iran. After all Pahlavi were only two generations. We do not have a line going back 1000 years. Not to mention lines going back to Yazdgird are not even in the play.

This is the fundamnetal challenge that Reza Pahlavi now faces and in any referendum post-IR, Iranins will ask him, "What have you done to earn this title other than the fact your father was a Shah".

I would ask a little different things:

  • Are you qualified for the job. My belieif is that he is.
  • Are there more qualified people and why are you more qualified. He needs to respond to that.
  • Have you done anything that will disqualifies you. In my opinion he did not.
  • What will you do if you are the Shah or leader whatever. That is the most important thing. Khomeini gave some real sweet answers but he was lying.
  • Do I trust you to not lie. I do trust RP to not lie. At least to begin with. People change so I am not able to predict what a King Reza Pahlavi II will be like 30 years after.
  • What have you done to deserve the job is last on my list. Because without power it is hard to do much. Besides whenever an Iranian does something one group or other trashes them! Maybe not having done much is best.