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.



Darius etc. All- Monarchies

by Simorgh5555 on

"Oligarchy founded purely on religious foundations inherent to the Islamic world and have never even adopted a Western style Constitutional reform in the first place."

This is precisely the point: Who says that monarchies should adopt a Western Style constiutution or carry out western style constitutional reform. The term monarchy cannot be pigeonholed into one category. Our own "Shah" has been translated as to mean "King" or "Emperor" and both terms have been used interchangeably when they are two distinct entitites. Our own Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi has been referred to Emperor more times than Shah when infact Iran did not have any overseas territory under his reign. Shahbanou Farah is known as 'Emperess' - being ironic because the Emperors have usually been associated with republics such as Roman Emperors or Napoleon, emperor of the French Republic. 

In reality, the title of "Shah" is neither a King, nor Emperor, according to the Western definition of the word. I know you have head me say it before  many times the Shah does not have to inherit a title and this stems even back to the Achaemenid dynasty when your namesake Darius 1 allegedly (but probably true!) killed Bardiya by accusing him of being an imposter as inscribed on the rocks of Bisotun in Kermanshah. The only thing which distinguished the Shah from the rest of his subjects was his chivalry and outstanding achievements in war or as a soldier such as Reza Khan or 'Shah'. There are and have never been consistent conventions and customs which govern the rule of the Shah as in the British monarchy. A 'Shah' can still be a shah without being an aristoctrat- again, see Reza Shah. He can rule without a consitution or any kind of checks and balances. Our 'Shah' has ruled in this manner for thousands of years before the 'European Kings' and their 'constiutions'.  

Technically, if Gaddafi put a crown on his head and declared himself emperor or King as Napoleon, what difference would that have made? Why would the former Crown Prince to Libya have a better title simply by applying a Western constiututional protocol on a Middle East country.  

Fundamentally, Iranians perhaps like Libyans want charismatic rulers to govern them as dociologist KArl Webber's Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Chapter: "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization said. Iranians are not impressed by hereditary rulers and the primary reason why rulers have risen and fallen is for the same reason. 

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".

As you, yourself pointed out, Iranians are not necesarily loyal (I think you mentioned the word 'treacherous' in a related blog) and therefore don't expect him to receive support by virtue of respect for his grandfather and father who were great rulers 



Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Response to Nazism

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


As DK says the fascination with authoritarian rule and modernization was big then. Iran had another reason to be supportive of Germany. It stood up to Britain. Then people were very sick of British meddling.

Iran wanted things like factories that British opposed. Germans on the other hand were happy to provide them. Along with expertise to run them. These were top quality not like the Russian junk IRI gets. People of Iran in response were supportive of Germany. Not because of Nazism but because it was the one modern nation to side with us. Reza Shah was being "democratic" by listening to the people. All those who want a responsive government that is what Reza Shah did. 

It is very simple to criticize without offering alternatives. We see the alternative offered in 1979: no thank you! I much prefer Reza Shah his son.

Darius Kadivar

Spatima who said "Republicanism" always equates "Democracy" ?

by Darius Kadivar on

They even led to far more brutal and absurd regimes Particularly in the Middle East:


Gaddafi compares himself to Queen Elizabeth II

Yemen's Saleh vows to end crisis amid crackdown - YouTube


SATIRE: Egypt's"Papyrus Revolution"  


Nearly ALL the Regimes born from popular anti Colonialist Revolutions  in the Middle East and North Africa failed to deliver democracy.   


Interestingly (until further notice) those who seem to have achieved or at least to date handled their "democratic" transitions with far less crackdowns and with far more flexibility have been monarchies like Jordan or Morroco.


Jordan's King Abdullah II Names International Judge As New Prime Minister


Morocco vote to curb king's powers, abolishing death penalty    


I wouldn't put the Emirates of Bahrain, Qatar or Saudi Arabiain the same category as traditional monarchies because they are more of an Oligarchy founded purely on religious foundations inherent to the Islamic world and have never even adopted a Western style Constitutional reform in the first place. Jordan and Morroco did ever since their inception (due to their colonial heritage Jordan copied the British Constitution, Morroco was modeled on the French Constitution with strong prerogatives for the King emulating the French Presidential executive powers) and so did Iran when Muzzaferedin Shah  drafted the first Constitution on the Belgian Model:

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: Mozaffaredin Shah Signs First Draft of the Constitution (1906)

THE SHAH's SPEECH: Qajar King Muzzaferedin Shah's Audio Recorded Speech

Had his son Muhamad Ali Shah not bombarded the Parliament with the help of foreign forces very much like Gaddafi his own People we wouldn't have had that uprising which became known as the Constitutional Revolution ( and not the Republican Revolution) and which shed such a negative light on the Qajar Dynasty. This decline in Qajar legitimacy  may explain why subsequently Reza Shah topple his grandson Ahmad Shah and established his own Dynasty as all Persian Dynasties have done in Iran's history. 


Besides words like "dictator","tyrant" were born with the Roman Republic. They didn’t even have the negative connotation it has today in Roman society.


Democratic ideas as we understand them today are themselves deeply rooted in the British Bill of Rights ( which announced Parliamentary Democracy) and Magna Carta ( which abolished torture) which subsequently influenced the American and French Republic's Constitutions.


RESTORATION:Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'


So might as well give credit where it's due:


ROYAL FORUM:Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican 



All this despite the fact that Britain doesn't even have a Written Constitution:


How Truly Democratic And Stable Is The British Monarchy?


However imperfect We did:


Cyrus Amir-Mokri on Pros and Cons of 1906 Constitution


Which is the minimum to have an accountable system of government. But this proves that having a Constitution is not enough to have a democratic society.

Democracy is first and foremost a mindset.  


So Before dismissing people by looking down on them as  ‘shahollahi’ instead of Reading and listening to their arguments might as well revise your own ignorant dogmatic approach towards « Republicanism »

SATIRE: The Burqa Republic of Our IRANICAN Dreams ;0)




Darius Kadivar

Mr. Cyrus Khorasani

by Darius Kadivar on

I was not claiming Teymour Tash was a Nazi or a Fascist I was suggesting that Teymour Tash was no more no less a Nazi than Reza Shah.

I was trying to show that historical PERSPECTIVE Matters more than merely stating dates and facts put together when making accusations on the socalled Nazi and Fascist enamourment of Reza Shah or his regime.

This is true whether we are speaking about Reza Shah or any other major political figure or given era in time. To understand history and try to draw lessons from it ( if that is someone's goal that is) I think that PERSPECTIVE matters MORE THAN DATES ! 

The fascination for the "mondernizing" and "authoritarian" rule for the likes of Hitler and Mussolini were natural tendancies in the roaring 20's shared by millions of people in the West who saw in Authoritarian rule the means to guarantee the march of society towards Industrial and social Progress. This was already deeply rooted in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution and took effect with the rise of Totalitarian ideologies best embodied equally by far right wing and far left wing groupes. Not surprising that Stalin and Hitler signed their non aggression pact at the advent of WWII despite opposing ideologies:

The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact - The 1939 Agreement 

The Nazis actually saw themselves as "Socialists" but under a "Nationalistic" umbrella. 

"Democracy" which we consider "sacred" today was no more that "virtuous" and "fashionable" word by the time Reza Shah came to power. What mattered far more in the minds of people in those years was if a leader was patriotic and fiercely nationalistic. Mossadegh fell in the same trap when he confused his priorities in entering the political arena. Even the events of 1953 are more deeply rooted in our national frustrations than our quest for democracy.

Because unlike the rest of the Western World which had moved forward by the end of WWII, we were only healing our scars after our humiliating occupation by allied forces. Were it otherwise we wouldn't be debating on this today and would have considered Reza Shah great anyhow since he would have probably died leaving his throne to his son whose legitimacy wouldn't have been constantly tested or questioned by our so called intelligentsia. All the ideological divisions that have arised in Iran over the Pahlavis are actually deeply rooted in political rivalries that rose with the vacuum of power created by his forced abdication.

We cannot even understand neither Iranian society's nor Mohamed Reza Shah's behaviors in the years that followed and particularly during the events of 1953 (which we keep erroneously calling a "coup against the First democratically elected Prime minister" if we don't understand the context in which he took oath to power) if we don't try to project ourselves in the realities and mindsets of those times:

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ? 

So to judge Reza Shah's actions from the distorted spectrum of what we know about the Nazi horrors and our own infatuation with "democracy" and "human rights" in retrosoect is naive and doesn't at all reflect the historical reality and context of the times.

Because again when it comes to learning from History PERSPECTIVE matters More than DATES ! 

TREASON IS A MATTER OF DATES: Constitutionalist Response to a Jomhurykhah Query 

You cannot judge Reza Shah or any leader in the middle east at that juncture including his contemporary Attaturk's rule by drawing far fetched comparisons with the most perfect "Jefforsonian Democracy".

This is like comparing Karzai government in Afghanistan to let's say France's Sarkozy or Italy's Berlusconi and claiming oh look how Karzai who is also the PResident of a Republic in the region is stepping on democratic values.

That's absurd. 

My humble Opinion,





رهبران ، اسیران زمانه


نظر دهنگان گرامی
به تصور من نه در خود نوشته و نه در نظرات گوناگون اساس ماجرا دیده  یا گفته نشده . و چون اصل را نمیبینیم جانبداری بی پایان از این و آن هم چندان کمکی به حال و آینده ایران  نخواهد کرد .
اصل نه این یا آن شاه و رهبر و یا پیشروان و بزرگان سیاست و مملکت داری بلکه خود ملت هستند .
هرچه در بالا پدیدار میشود نتیجه چیزیست که در اکثریت مردم زمانه میجوشد . بالائی ها به ظاهر حاکمند ، که در عمل و در بهترین حالت  مجری اراده مردم هستند و هرگاه اراده عمومی تغییر کند و بالا نتواند هماهنگ شود از سر راه برداشته خواهد شد . مردم هم دانسته و ندانسته همچون سایر پدیده های طبیعی تابع سیکل یا چرخه های یک در میان سازندگی  و تخریب یا پیش روی و پس روی میشوند . رهبران و به بیان درست تر وکلای بزرگتر و بادوامتر آنهائی هستند که به بهترین صورت ممکن بیانگر و مجری سرسخت خواست مردم زمانه هستند . این عامه مردم هستند که به تبع خلق و خوی متغیر خود شاهی را بالامیبرند و بعد سرنگون یا رهبری آسمانی میسازند و سپس دوزخیش میکنند . اقتدار یا ضعف حاکمان جلوه قابل مشاهده توانمندی یا درماندگی عامه ملت هستند و چون ما این را نمیبینیم همه افتخارات را به رهبران نسبت میدهیم و یا همه کاسه کوزه ها را بر سر آنان میشکنیم . با این دیدگاه رضا شاه و دیگر بزرگان این مملکت محصول دوره های اعتلا و سازندگی و روان به نسبت سالم مردم زمانه خود هستند و رهبران مخرب و بیمار هم بازتاب دهنده دوره های تباهی و بیماری ملت .  بر سر گذاردن تاج یا عمامه هم در اصل اراده مردمست تا ضرورتآ خواست قلبی آن بالائی .طبیعی هم هست که هیچ حکومتی با ناز و نوازش نمیتواند کشور را اداره کند و همه را راضی نگه دارد . تضاد های جور واجور همیشه هست و نتیجه اش هم خشونت کم یا بیش . اگر کشوری به نسبت دور قبلی و در قیاس با جهان پیرامون گامی واقعی به جلو برداشت که بازتابش بهتر شدن روح و روان و زندگی عمومی مردم هست حکومت یا مملکت داریش هم مثبت و اگر ملت پژمرده و تباه شوند حکومتش هم نمره منفی میگیرد .

به امید اینکه ما ایرانیان به خردی عمیق تر در باره گذشته وحال و آینده کشورمان دست یابیم .

اگر هم فرصت دارید  نوشته زیر با عنوان ( در جهان چه میگذرد ؟ ) که هشت ماه پیش ثبت شد را ملاحظه و با رویداده ای کنونی جهان مقایسه بفرمائید .



Can someone remind our Shahollahi friends that Reza Khan was

by spatima on

Can someone remind our Shahollahi friends that Reza Khan was initially a republican? I think the real idealism lies when we compare pre W.W.II Iran with that of today! Security and independence were the top priorities of our Iranian forefathers. I dont want to make rediculous predictions here but I strongly believe if the man (that is Reza Khan) was alive today he wouldnt be endorsing a "oriental style'' dictatorship. Our needs have certainly changed. In his time half of the country was being over run by tribal chieftains. Now we have some what of a centralized government. If Reza Khan was a practical man then he would definately dismiss his own contemporary shahollahi endorsers.

Let us consider for a second the monarchist argument. Reza khan blah blah blah, great man, blah blah, knew what was good for Iran, blah blah, AHA!

key point here is that the the guy had intuition! he had a sense (maybe an extreme version but nonetheless a sense) of what his people  demanded. He failed to force reforms upon them but brought  security and centralization. So he did contribute to the country's overall democratization process, whether intentionally or not.

And yes, maybe a democratic Iran may be a far fetched idea to some people on this forum, but a centralized persia was also a thing out of the ordinary for those living in 20s and 30s. So Id say in that sense, Reza khan was a dreamer too and had he not envisioned his goals prior to acheiving them well then we would have been no better than afghanistan today.

As Kasravi so beautifully  put it:"
"Judge Reza Khan by the period by which he ascended to the throne."

It is critical for our hamvatans to learn that solid political deductions are based on considering a number of different factors. One cannot make an overall conclusion based on two different historical processes. In laymen terms, dont shout I love monarchy because you think Reza Khan was a swell guy. You would be suprised, the practically within the man would have probably placed him in the opposing camp! He would chose what is best for Iran at this day and age (DEMOCRACY), because thats what patriots do, RIGHT?


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


Rohash shad o khoram

by statira on

He was the second Cyrus the Great.

Cyrus Khorasani

Response to Mr. Kadivar and Rise of Nazism in Iran

by Cyrus Khorasani on

Dear Mr. Kadivar,

I certainly appreciate that you are a big fan of Reza Shah and I respect that. However, to suggest that Teymourtash was the cause of Nazism and not Reza Shah is extremely fanciful. 

Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933. Teymourtash had been dismissed in 1932. Furthermore, the first recorded evidence of the Iranian government pushing Nazism occured in 1933 when Iran Bastan was published. The high tide of the ideology came by the mid-1930s.

I presume you refer to Teymourtash's picture with Mussolini as evidence oh his Nazi sympathies. The picture was taken in 1928 when Teymourtash visted Rome to buy Italian vessels and secure training for twenty Iranian soldiers in Italy. The vessels which established Iran's first navy arrived in the summer of 1932. In fact, Teymourtash had first approached the British for vessels, and when they turned it down arranged for the delivery of vessels from Italy.  



Lies and deceptions!

by Arj on

Amazingly, idol-worshippers among us, whether of Hezbollahi or Shahollahi kind, stoop to any level and spare no servility to not only aggrandize their idol (whether it's HIM Ariamehr, Razashah Kabir, Emam Khomeini, Emam Ali, Emam Hossein or Emam Khamenei), but to dehumanize our entire nation either as "two-legged Olaghs" who did not deserve Pahlavis or "sag-e dar-e Khooneh Emam Hossein or Mahdi!"

Indeed our people were anything but "namak nashnas." On the contrary, if anyone, Pahlavis were the "namak nashnas" ones and did not deserve our people. For Reza Shah, an illitterated cossak hailing from the villages of Svadkooh, was given an opportunity to lead a recently democratized monarchy with newly coined constitutional reforms (that was achieved by the sacrifice of their lives trhough numerous wars and revoltuion), and yet, turned it into a petty dictatorship that not only once and for all put an end to the democratic dreams of a nation, but murdered and imprisoned the very heroes that made the revolutionary reforms possible!

Lying and exaggerating about Reza Shah's achievements does not fool anyone, nor does comparing Iran (minus Raza Khan) with Afghanistan! What sets Iran apart from Afghanistan, is the miracle of oil, not that of Raza Shah's! Is that to say that Reza Shah would've been able to build roads if Iran had no oil?! It's very much like comparing Saudi Arabia (minus king Abdulaziz or Faisal) with the next door, poor neighbour, Yemen! What sets Saudi Arabia apart from Yemen, is oil wealth, not the degree of competency of King Abdulaziz or Fiasl! Without the oil revenue Abdulaziz or Faisal could not do jack squat to transform KSA, nor would Reza Shah Iran!

Finally, with regards to Reza Shah's forced de-veiling of Iranian women, I recommend to our resident Shahollahis here to read about Iranian women's movements in the pre-Reza Khan era (either during the constitutional revolution or before) to see our women's rights movement had begun way before Reza Khan's forced changes, and if anything, he hindered that movement by alienating conservative constitutionalists! One of the consequences of his forceful de-veiling is what we witness as the Islamist bcklash in the form of mandatory Hejab after 1979 revolution! The de-veiling would have taken its natural course even without Reza Shah, as is seen in many other Moslim-majority countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Algeria... 

Kaveh Nouraee

You "Anti-Shah" Bozos Contribute....

by Kaveh Nouraee on

the only credible evidence of global warming, namely the hot air you spew into the air.

If you don't like him, you don't like him. I have better things to do than waste my time on a bunch of pigheaded stubborn mules that your patent stupidity has contributed to one of the oldest civilizations in the history of mankind remaining backwards.

Call me a Shaollahi, call me a monarchist. So what. But if you have the balls to say anything disparaging Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza Shah, the Pahlavis, or the monarchy in general, back it up by having the BRAINS  to enlighten all of us on how WONDERFUL your beloved IR is.

Because all any of us see is a that a bunch of Arab-worshipping maggots have taken whatever cultural and socio-economic progress that was made and literally shat all over it.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Friends

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I know just makeing a bit of a joke. Glad there are people around who really appreciate the Pahlavi. I am really sick of hearing them bashed by "namak nashnas" people. If we do not honor our greats we will never get anywhere.

Oon Yaroo

Dear VPK, There are many tansformers...!?

by Oon Yaroo on

Fourier, Laplace, Hankel, Voltage, and Reza Shah....! :-)

What I meant to say was that through his love, dedication, and hard work for the country many Iranians moved up to a better and higher standards of living.

I know that it might sound a cliche but he introduced/implemented the concept of birth certificate although many folks here like to deny or trivialize it!

Prior to the ascendancy of Reza Shah to power, traveling in Iran was tantamount to being raped, plundered, and killed during your journey. 

He single-handedly brought security and stability to Iran by consolidating of powers of a group of outlaw tribes (very much like present day Afghanistan!)I know this is a preaching to the quire but is worthwhile repeating it!


I think Oon Yaroo means Modernizer King + who's son

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

provided the freedom so that iranians could transform themselves and while many did exactly that, some Iranians in an act of betrayal acted irresponsibly and therefore lead Iran away from Freedom and Towards tyranny.  The Good the father and son did was great.

If people have any doubt that Iran was going in the right direction then they are likely just anti-monarchists, not democrats of which the most democratic countries today are constitutional monarchys.  //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Oon Yaroo Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I have a great deal of love and respect for Reza Shah. But a "Transfoemer?" sounds to me as if you are too much an Engneer! Reza Shah was a King; this is a transfomer: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer

Oon Yaroo

Reza Shah was a transformer!

by Oon Yaroo on

He transformed a bunch of backward, illiterate, and effectively two-legged Olaghs into respectable human beings. That was his main contribution!

God bless him!


The sad thing about the direction of Iran Today, which most

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Iranians feel is wrong, unlike The Shahs time which most Iranians Today feel was right, is that people are now looking for miracles and divine intervention which leads to a life that is a lie and a full of misery.  The Shah loved Iran enough to want Iranians thinking to be supported by logic, science and experimentation.  And not have the government of the people interferred with by people trying to unsuccessfully interpret out dated thoughts that should be discarded. We’re living in an amazing time, those of us living outside Iran.

See it with your own eyes. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOtIsnG71U



History won't be kind to the Muslims that took over Iran

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

They´re not happy in Gaza.
They're not happy in Egypt.
They're not happy in Libya.
They're not happy in Morocco.
They're not happy in Iran.
They're not happy in Iraq.
They're not happy in Yemen.
They're not happy in Afghanistan.
They're not happy in Pakistan.
They're not happy in Syria.
They're not happy in Lebanon.
So, where are they happy?
They're happy in Australia.
They're happy in Canada.
They're happy in England.
They're happy in France.
They're happy in Italy.
They're happy in Germany.
They're happy in Sweden.
They're happy in the USA.
They're happy in almost every country that is not Muslim!
And whom do they blame?
Not Islam...
Not their leadership...
Not themselves...
And they want to change the countries they're happy in,
to be like the countries they came from,
where they were unhappy.
Try to find logic in that !

Darius Kadivar

Ties between Iran/Persia and Germany dated prior to Nazis

by Darius Kadivar on

The Qajars had already diplomatic ties with the Prussians and so did the Turks to Balance British influence in the region.

Muzzaferedin Shah with Prussian Officers in Potzdam


Teymour Tash whom Reza Shah eliminated was probably more of a Nazi Sympathizer than the Shah himself. Very much like Teymour Bakhtiar whom Reza Shah's Son Mohamad Reza Shah eliminated.

Mainly because the Nazis and Fascists were able to deliver an economic "miracle" that revived their countries from the rubbles of WWI and particularly the humiliating defeat of Germany imposed by the Treaty of Versailles.

So it was not uncommon to see many admiring them including in most European Capitals even in France who had defeated Germany in WWI.

Teymour Tash's military training was done in Russia and Prussia and he travelled extensively in many European Capitals of the Austro Hungarian Empire.

Teymour Tash and Mussolini


The Fact is that The Cruel Reality of the Nazi Holocaust was hardly acknowledged in Europe until the Allies liberated the Camps towards the end of the War and flirting with the Nazis or Fascists was hardly seen as dishonorable in Western "Democratic" Capitals.

The film Tea with Mussolini say's it all ...

Tea with Mussolini (1999) Trailer


Churchill actually is said to have admired Mussolini in the 1930's because of his economic accomplishments envied by many conservatives in europe:


Winston Churchill 'ordered assassination of Mussolini to protect compromising letters’ ?(Daily Telegraph)


People ranging from Charles Lindberg:


Charles Lindbergh's September 1941 Anti-War Speech
      Hermann Goering gives Charles Lindbergh a Nazi medal.jpg



King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson:

Was Edward a Nazisympathiser? Channel 4 documentary from 1995.


President Kennedy's own Father was a nazi sympathizer:


Joseph Kennedy and the Jews - History News Network 


NewsMine.org - Joseph kennedy supported hitler



So frankly anyone who assimilates Reza Shah ties with Nazi Germany as an endorsement of Nazi Ideology or the Killing of the Jews is childish at best and only reflects one's general ignorance of World History and particularly of the 1930's and the years that led to the second world war.

Reza Shah was authoritarian undoubtably but a Fascist or a Nazi definitively not ! 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Anti Pahlavi you know we have had dictatorship in Iran for almost all our history. How did Reza Shah institutionalized a 3000 year long thing? 

You guys are idealists and not realistic. If Reza Shah failed to be firm Iran would have been in hands of the Mullahs long ago. With Reza Shah we got almost a century of modernity before Khomeini. At least we got a chance. Without him we'd have been deep in ignorance of Mullahs with no hope. Idealists want everything right now. In practice they get nothing. Realists recognize what is possible; maybe pust the edge but within reason. 

How about this idea a very "democratic" one mind you. I celebrate Reza Shah you don't. Meanwhile names "Thug"; "Idol" and "Dumb" do not change anyone mind. Just detract from the ones saying these words.


Sometimes it is too difficult for idealists to be understanding

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

regarding realists and rational people, even in the face of tangeable results.  We were worse than Afghanistan before Reza Shah the great and then in time one of the top 10 countries in the world depite the reactions of so many acting emotionally on lies they heard from outside, the word dictator isn't even Iranian.  Sadly too many took the country towards a trap and they have too little remorse to rectify their own character.  Thankfully enough of the youth born after 1979 are open minded and realize the good of the Shah.

The damage being done to iranians by anti-monarchists as well as the damage done in the past, how can these people live with a clear conscience?  For now, iranians either need to
leave their homeland and save themselves (a priority in life) or work together hand in hand to restore the Monarchy and create a better future centered on Freedom.  Good Article, Keep Up the Good Work and Great to see you on IC expressing yourself. Thankyou Sir.



Reza shah the Great and his unique personality

by Siavash300 on

Great article. Nothing could be said more about a patriatic soldier who was the father of our modern Iran. His heart was beating for Iran and he died for Iran. His legacy of banning hejab reflects in the behavior of our women these days who are resisting arab made law of forceful hejab. His authoritative character made him strong shah in the catergory of Nader and Cyrus the Great. Cyrus the Great, Shah Abbas, Nader, and finally Reza shah are our treasures. Any patriatic Iranian who loves Iran should respect our history and our great shahs.  Reza Khan aroused right after a weak shah who prefered to sell ice cream in Europe than to be shah in Iran. The name of that weak individual was Ahamad shah Qjar. Reza khan with his authorative personality defeated all clergies who were opposed to our progress and modernization for many centuries. He considered them as a "parasite of our society". One of them was Hadi Modares. He was another Khomaini during Reza shah's time.  Unlike shah, Reza khan was very firm with those bastards and killed and suppressed all their voices, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to move forward as we did during Pahlavi dynasty. He treated them as the enemy of Iran. Enemy of Iran should go to hell as it is the wish of any patriatic Iranians. That is the reason stinky ruling mullahs in Iran considers Reza khan as a thug and dictator. They realize how firm Reza khan was with them and he didn't let mullahs to grow. Thanks Reza khan. He had a good vision and right feeling about those monsters. Those monsters eventually took power in 1979 and we all know what happened once they came to power. No need to mention further.  


Worship of thugs!

by Arj on

Condemned to perpetual oppression and suffering under worst forms of tyranny are the nations who glorify thuggery as incarnation of a "strongman!" Those whose whorship of thugs blinds their conscience from seeing the consequences of thuggery and tyranny!

Instead of being praised for building roads (which is among the basic duties of any head of state!), he should be condemned for making a mockery of our hard-fought-for constituion! He should be condemned for institutionalizing tourtore and imprisonement of political dissidents and thinkers in modern Iran!

Nothing... and absolutely nothing, he could do (even if he built a railway to the moon) would be enough to wash away the shame of his betrayal of our nation's constitutional movement and institutionalizing modern dictatorship in Iran!

Mash Ghasem

Mr. Khorasani

by Mash Ghasem on

But he had established ties with Nazis and was augmenting them. I agree that his increasing ties to Germans was used as a pretext. Even if he had no ties to Germans, the Allied forces would have still invaded Iran to ensure strategic positioning.

I'm trying to find the book I mentioned, and the parts about Nazi influences in Iran during that period, right before his exile. If succesful in finding it , I'll post it.

And  your sources? If it's not too much of a trouble. Your familiarity with APOC's trearties is awesome, and your assesment of Adolph Reza Khan as some would like to call him is very informed and balanced, thank you.


Precisely, idol worship is to

by Cost-of-Progress on

- beat your chest and slash yourself (literally)to a bloody pulp for dead arabs with whom we have nothing in common

- idolize another dead arab who killed over 400 Iranians in one day

- blindly follow an alien religion that has had nothing for Iran but assbackwardness & institutionalized ignorance for a long long time





It is not Idol Warship ...

by Harpi-Eagle on

To acknowledge Reza Shah's accomplishments for our nation, that's knowing your contemporary history.  What's real Idol Warship is to wasrship a black Arab stone and bow dwon toward it 5 times a day from any where on the planet, and spending thousands to go to the Arabland to warship it some more.

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Idol worship vs appreciation of work

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Dear Arj I disagree about this idol worship issue. There is a difference between worship and appreciation. Idol worship is when people hold someone above all reproach. Basically as infallible.

Appreciations is when people thank one for good work. I give you some examples:

  • I appreciate my parents hard work in raising me. I do not worship them. They are human and fallible yet I thank them for their work.
  • I appreciate Einsteins good work in Physics. Again he was fallible and got Quantum Mechanics wrong. But he did good work and I appreciate not worship him. Saome for others like Newton.
  • Same for Pahlavi both Shahs who did very good work. But were fallible humans.


Cyrus Khorasani

Reply to Mash Ghasem on Pretext for Invasion in 1941

by Cyrus Khorasani on

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your your kind comment. As for whether the British/Soviet invasion of 1941, I personally think suggestions that Iran's strengthened ties with the Germans was the cause is fabricated. The two countries had to come up with a diplomatic pretext to invade a sovereign country and decided that citing Iran's so called ties with Germany had the best ring to it.

while during the First World War, Iran had sadly represented the bridge to Afghanistan and India, for the purposes of the Second World War it was reffered to as as to "bridge to Victory" to allow the British to transport arms to the beleagured USSR from the Persian Gulf. 

The sad part was that I think the evidence shows Reza Shah was completely oblivious to the reality that the two would attack. The writing had been on the wall for some time. Although the British had militarily occupied Iraq since May 1941, and had subsequently moved to occupy Syria, Lebanon and Palestine by early June, Reza Shah remained oblivious to the changing international landcape. To cite one example, Curtiss P-36 aircraft that had arrived from the U.S. had remained in crates for many months before the Anglo-Russian Attack of August 1941.   

Cyrus Khorasani

Response To Mr. Yar on Reza Shah & 1933 Oil Agreement

by Cyrus Khorasani on

Although I diasagree with your overall assertion that I am providing misleading information in my original posting, you raise valid points. You suggest that reducing the area of the concession to 1/5 of the original area or establishing a minimum floor in the 1933 agreement was a great feat. I disagree, since extending a concession by 60 years is a huge deal, and this is why I do not believe the issues you touch on were important.

i) Selection Clause 

I believe reducing the area of the concession to 1/5 of the area agreed to in the original D'arcy agreement was simply a cosmetic change that looked good on paper. At face value reducing the area APOC’s to 100,000 square miles seems amazing. In reality "selection clauses" represented boiler plate provisions in all oil agreements negotiated by multinationals with all third world countries since the 1920s. As such it was standard practise.

The idea is that a prospector is granted rights to a large area to start, and then has to decide on its own what smaller portion it has selected to work on. Since the early 1920s APOC had agreed to a selction clause to reduce its area of operation considerably. But then the company kept dragging its feet. The company was certainly provided a very long period to decide on its concessionary area for a company which had been active in the country for almost three decades.

ii) Annual Payments 

The new agreement guaranteed a minimum annual payment of £ 750,000 to the Iranian government. While the provisions would appear favourable, it represented another squandered opportunities for the Iranian government. The minimum guaranteed royalty was far too modest. From 1926 to 1931 Iran had on avaerage received 1.3 million pounds. Agreeing to 750,000 punds was therefore not a huge deal by any stretch.

iii) Other Aspects 

The Agreement also exempted APOC from Iranian income taxes introduced by Teymourtash in 1930 as an ingenuous initiative to graner an additional 4% from APOC. As such APOC had to pay 16% according to D'Arcy and 4% on account of Iranian domestic Taxes. Reza Shah took the 20% formula, eliminated the 4% Iranian taxes, and said he had raised royalties from 16% to 20%. In reality nothing had changed in the math.  had introduced to garner higher income from APOC. Apart from providing Iran additional income, the original imposition of Iranian taxes provided the country a lever to deter the British Government from arbitrarily raising its own British taxes on APOC’s operations. To put the matter in perspective the British Government assessed taxes on APOC in 1932 for £ 195,000, a figure which  increased steadily to £2,921,000 for 1941. By eliminating its own taxes on APOC in 1933, the Iranian government had no way to retaliate.

In another fit of negligence the Shah also agreed that APOC’s operations would be exempt from import or customs duties. While previously Iran’s principal argument had been that the agreement was inequitable since it never received Parliamentary approval, Iran carelessly cast aside such an argument when the new Agreement was ratified by the Majles on May 28, 1933. Finally, Iran surrendered its right to annul the agreement, and settled on a complex and tediously complicated arbitration process to settle any disagreements that arose.

Other principal issues not addressed in the revised agreement were safeguards allowing Iran to examine the Company’s books, to receive guarantees on lower prices for domestic consumption, or a system which would account for the destination of Iranian exports. Moreover, the reversionary clause of the old D’Arcy concession entitling Iran to obtain all of APOC’s assets on the expiry of the Agreement was not replicated in the new agreement. According to Article 15 of the old D’Arcy concession, “on the expiration of the term of the present concession, all materials, buildings, apparatuses thus used by the company for the exploitation of its industry should become the property of the said government”. In the revised concession the installations and machinery and machinery would revert back to APOC at the expiration of the concession in 1993. Finally, whereas under the D’Arcy concession the Iranian Government had a legal claim to the Company’s worldwide annual profits and assets, under the new Agreement Iran forewent any claim for the company’s global profits or entitlement to its assets located outside the country.

Iran had also taken APOC’s word on its Iranianization policy. While much was made of APOC’s commitment to train Iranian oil specialists in 1933, any astute observer would concede the undertaking could hardly be taken seriously. Hitherto the problem had not been whether APOC was committed to obligations, but whether they could be held to faithfully honour their undertakings. Moreover, Reza Shah was clearly aware that it was notoriously difficult to keep foreign companies to their commitments to train Iranian nationals, as best exemplified by the Junker’s failure to live up to its far more modest commitments and the concomitant cancellation of its flights to Iran in the previous year.

For four years,  APOC in fact stalled until 1937, before the issue of training Iranians was first raised and revisited, let alone remedied. It proved a costly mistake, for if Iranians who would have been the beneficiaries of a more generous APOC commitment. Had students APOC had committed to send shared a fraction of the talents of the only two wunderkinds APOC had provided funding for by the late 1930s, Fouad Rohani and Fakhreddin Shadman, the country had been denied immense treasures by APOC’s deliberately ham-handed ways. 

To add insult to injury, Reza Shah instituted laws that no commercial establishment could hire more than 10 percent of its employees from among Iranians of Armenian descent or Jewish persuasion. In 1938 the Iranian government foolishly instructed APOC to enforce the law to ensure it was adhering to the religious minority quotas

Resa Shah alone was reposnible for the fiasco of the 1933 revised agreement. If anyone believes a barely literate man could have pulled a fast one on APOC's Sir John Cadman, one of the smartest global executives of the period, I believe they are delusional. When the more sophisticated likes of Hassan Taghizadeh, Hossein Ala or Ali Akbar Davar tried to intervene to talk Reza Shah out of the terrible positions he was agreeing to, they were yelled at and abused by Reza Shah. 

Any individual, whether Reza Shah or Khomeini, who think that despite their lack of experience or modern education, know better than anyone else is a fool. Reza Shah was essentially no different than Khomeini who famously quipped "economics is for donkeys". 


it's mind boggling

by shushtari on

how these so called 'hamvatans' criticize reza shah kabir......

face it, you and your family's would be wearing burkas if it wasn't for him......the environment in which he was working in was filled with traitors, british-stooges, akhoonds, and a bunch of uneducated peasants.....he single-handedly brought iran out of the dumpster of the qajars' mismanagement and destruction of iran

now, you idealists want to paint him as a brutal dictator that should be have done things differently- this sounds utterly familiar- just like 1979, when half of you and your parents fell for an illiterate mullah and called him ghandi!  at the same time, reza pahlavi was painted as a brutal dictator with 30000 political prisoners, and responsible for burning 400 abadanis in cinema rext, and yada yada yada.....

the same 'antelectuals' who destroyed iran to bring their own version of 'democracy' should see what iran has become today....when a population is not 'intellectually ready' or educated enough to embrace such a thing.....

today, despite all the mullahs' feeble attempts to brainwash our youth, the majority want to join the modern world, and don't fall for the crap that they are being fed daily......in fact, had the shah not been overthrown, he would have likely died in 1980, and we would have a much better shot at democracy by now, than with a bunch of no good thieves and murderers who have stranghold on iran today