Sic Semper Tyrannis

Food For Thought: Seven Days in May / The Democratic Process

One of the most intelligent movies on the importance, yet fragility of the democratic institutions.  John Frankenheimer's Seven Day's in May -made at the Height of the Cold War Paranoia and the Cuban Missile Crisis.  

JFK wanted movie "Seven Days in May" made :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRiZtqVPJ9U 

Arthur Schlesinger and John Frankenheimer (director) talk about he movie "Seven Days in May", a 1962 movie about a military coup to overthrow the President and how JFK was anxious to have the movie made in order to create public awareness of the military's resistance to his policies.

The Crucial Scene Between Burt Lancaster ( Military Chief of Staff) and Frederic March ( The US President):

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iht6ha2fTXY

The Shah of Iran and President Kennedy:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1a5TAepYXs 

The Shah of Iran and President Kennedy during Military manouvers in the US ( Iran purchasing US Arms) :

Recommended Reading:

Bio of Power Hungry General Teymour Bakhtiar - head of SAVAK from 1958 to 1961 when he was dismissed by the Shah. In 1970, SAVAK agents assassinated him in Iraq (More Here)

FYI/The Third Man - Cukoo Clock Democracy Speach

I suppose All things are Relative ...

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

"You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

PS: That said I don't entirely agree with Harry Lime's brilliant conclusion. But you know when I see what the current Republic has pulled us down today there are times when I wonder ... ;0) 

One more thing,

The real revolution in 20th century Iran was NOT the 1979 insanity fest/national suicide most of us (those with a mininum of 2 ounces of brain matter) have come to horribly regret, but rather, the REAL revolution in 20th century Iran was the Pahlavi Revolution, with all its warts and flaws. The two Pahlavi kings, may they eternally rest in peace, in a very short span of time -- a mere 53 years! -- did more for the neglected cause of Iran than all the kings and clergy put together during the last 1,400 years of tortured Iranian history, dating back to the very roots of our collective downfall at Qadisiyeh.

God bless Reza Shah II, the only true "monarch" under the precepts of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution, the only legal document enforceable under the legitimate rule of law in Iran.

Iran is a prisoner of IRI 

Anonymous Observer, choose your words wisely...

I hate to say this, but I don't like the tenor of your blog -- first, let me clearly say that I do appreciate your overall point here and what you're trying to say, but friend, words do matter, greatly.

You can't utter the phrase "name one way that a VF is not a monarchy" and expect an educated discussion. You just can't phrase it that way, as it's patently illiterate (no offense, as we are allies on many fronts). In Iran, over a span of nearly 3,000 years, we've had 446 royal kings. You "could," I guess, say that we've had 448 kings (including Khomeini and Khamenei), but that would be lazy, counter-productive, uneducated and plain wrong. A monarch assumes power from his/her subjects -- the people -- while a dictator derives power from his army. You could say we replaced a monarchy with a military dictatorship (sepah), but you cannot even go near the phrase that VF is a continuation of a "monarchy." It's just wrong word choice, and as I said earlier, words matter greatly, specially in this context.

In an Iranian-style monarchy, the nation, Iran-zamin, is deemed sacred, while under the VF, Islam, a foreign ideology, trumps the nation-state as the sacred cow, pun intended. This is a monumental difference. Thusly, word choice is crucial. Khomeinist Velayat-e-Faghigh is inherently (and structurally) a dictatorship of the clergy, any way you look at it. Iranian-style monarchy, on the other hand, (post enghelab-e-Mashruti) can be a dictatorhip, but this is not necessarily, nor inherently a structural inevitability. As such, you can not be loosey-goosey about this subject matter and toss the label "monarchy" around the noose of Khomeinst VF.

As SamSam rightly noted, the association/comparison of the former with the latter would inevitably lend a scintilla of legitimacy, not necessarily your intention, to the concept of Velayat-e-Faghigh. And frankly, them bastards don't even deserve a scintilla of royal shit, specially if the royal bears the noble name of Pahlavi.

Iran is a prisoner of IRI 

isk

what a waste of mindset the avg. Iranians turned into ?

I just wanted to let you know with out flagging your nonsences.   Maziar

VF has "jur at" , monarchy and specifically Moh'd Reza= bi orze

i don't care what side you're on. But one thing that historians , religious and secular will agree upon is that:

Khomeini has guts, self confidence and charisma

Shah Moh'd Reza had none

It's really disgraceful when you see a gutless leader like the Shah of Iran, King Abdullah of Jordan and King Moh'd of Morroco who can only flex their muscles on their people but bend over to be screwed royally by western powers!

I even hold more respect for Saddam than the Shah of Iran. Atleast with battleship within close range, Saddam refused Bush's 48 warning.
He appeared three days into the war, walking the streets of Baghdad and he chose to be executed with no head cover.
Lest not be forgotten, God's punishment was to have him be humiliated by hiding underground like a mouse.

Now, how many people can say that the Shah would have done the same. Twice, he left the country because he was a Pansy or Pu--- . Had he been found hiding underground, I think he would have surrendered with his ass out first, lest American soldiers get horny and let him go after an anal f---!

benross

thanks for the response.  First, in my opinion, I think that the foundations of a shia "mullarchy" were laid by the safavids, who essentially derived their legitimacy by forcefully establishing a shiite empire.  I really think that post-Safavid Iran history is indicative of the "struggle" (for lack of a better word) of the Shia clergy class-the bastard child of the Safavid fiasco--to take the ultimate step of moving from being the "religious guardians" of the society-as laid down by the Safavids--to becoming the actual rulers.  The 1979 devolution was the "fruits" of their centuries long labor.  In that sense, I think they derive their existence as a ruling class from the Safavids.

As far as my rather "relaxed" comparison between VF and monarchy, my point was to show that the 1979 devolution and hoopla did not change the basic ruling structure of the country.  The ultimate--practical--result of the devolution was the creation of another monarchy.  Now we can call it VF or "dog poo" (more appropriate) if we want, but if it walks like a duck ....it's a duck.  That's the point that I was trying to get across.   

No takers on the Safavid

No takers on the Safavid legacy and / or connection?

This is a tough call. I'm not sure this is the right track to follow. Beside making Iran a Shiite country by widespread force, massacre and tyranny, I really don't see any connection. It would have been the same if Safavid have made Iran Ismaili by force or any other, while at the same time aspiring of the greatness of Persian empire of pre-Islamic era.

This seems to be the pattern of most dynasties of Iranian origin in Islamic era... And now even Ahmadinejad is talking about Koorosh!

The real issue, again, is modernity. The historic alliance of kingdom and clergy (not in European terms mind you) to rule the country became increasingly obsolete when the long tradition of 'arbitrary rule' as Homa Katoozian puts it, was challenged facing modernity.

Clergy still played important *tactical* role in social conflicts of last century, being on the side of monarch or others, but facing the advance of modernity, that historical and strategic alliance was becoming increasingly obsolete. And this is one thing that Pahlavi dynasty mirrored, although it continued to play it as *tactical* necessity in a society in transition.

Khomeini revolution was nothing other than turning the clock back. Acknowledging that the monarch can no longer be considered its natural ally, assumed the role of monarch in VF to save the traditional role of clergy in the society.

If Islamic revolution was an event of 200 years ago, which by definition did not need to happen at that time, I could be more comfortable with your nonchalance of equating 'king' and 'VF'.

In the face of modernity, and historical part that each side played (including during Ghaajaar) advancing its cause, I find this comparison utterly disrespectful.

..

with the monarchy passport you could travel almost every where and be  treated with respect

with vf passport you can't even get a visa to afghanistan and every where else you're subject to even cavity search........Maziar

Khalifate vs Monarchy

Monarchy for good(Kiaan) or for Bad(most of post-kiaan) is an Iranian concept vs khalifate which is an Ommatie imported/invented entity. Associating one to the other simply legitimizes the latter.

In India the Gaav(cow) is king & in Ommatestan the king is Gaav.

AO Jaan; Thanks for the blog. Cheers & Kindest regards pilgram!!!

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Star Trek's Camelot Sacred Quest ...

Make Sure Not to F...rt in my General direction :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9PGcnM10lA

;0)

Marjaneh

I don't know about trouser lengths, but I have noticed that their jacket sleeves are always too long.  May be they leave it long so when they want to shake hands with women they can pull  it down and use it as an impromptu glove.

No takers on the Safavid legacy and / or connection?

I think that's an important part of IRI's foundation and personality.

خیلی ساده است

سلطنت: خدا، شاه، میهن

ولایت فقیه: ولی‌ فقیه ،  ولی‌ فقیه،  ولی‌ فقیه

Tailors. Usually monarchs engage good tailors.

Even the Emperor with no clothes on had a good tailor.

I don't understand it, but each and every one of the officials of the current regime have very peculiar trouser-lengths. Have you noticed that too?

I don't know what this means either, but I'm sure it's very symbolically symptomatic of something important, starting with the effects of walking on this earth and consequent "psyche(osis)"...

Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution - Walter Benjamin

VF is an agent of God on

VF is an agent of God on earth. This gives him more power and  authority, influence than a king in shaping spiritual, religious, and cultural norms of the society.

onlyiran, dk

onlyiran: food for thought

"almighty god, creator of universe and mankind, bestower of intelligence, wisdom, and thought on humanity, who hast granted numberless blessings, to our noble land, thou hast appointed the just arya mehr as custodian of the land of iran."  prayer for shah in the early 1970s (after acquiring title aryamehr)

dk:

i hope people don't get confused and end up with chicks with pricks.

When it comes to the issue of democtratization

there is a difference.  Monarchy can be reformed, a theocracy (or in terms of the IRI, a thugacracy) cannot be reformed  The reason is that VF claims to get his authority from the divine, and by definition, that is not something that is open to discussion, change or reform.  If God says that women have to walk around in burqas, then "it shall be so".  Who are we, as mere mortals, or in the IRI lingo, as "safih's" to challenge that.  The "faghih" sets the rules for the dumb "safihs" to follow, and that is the end of the story.

Sharing my Response to Brian Appleton's Blog

I am sharing with you a conversation with fellow Blogger Brian Appleton in his blog in regard to Bakhtiar's assassin's liberation where he claims or rather suggests that bakhtiar was a Republican. My argument is that he was not a Republican but a Constitutionalist. But beyond that fact that he supported the Restoration of the 1906 Constitution which by definition is a Royalist Constitution which encompasses Republican Ideals. The Framework defining it however remains the Royal Insitution for symbolic and historical reasons specific to Iran's history and identification to it's royal heritage. Again I could develop this further but have to go sorry. Hope to be back on this thread later on this week.

Bye,

DK

Here is my last statement which I feel is in line with the discussions we are having here. Please feel free to comment or contradict my or his assessments.

My last Thread:

In that case please explain to me why Some chose Resoration ? 

First of all thank you Brian Jaan for not taking my comments personally but simply as an intellectual discourse or challenge whichever way you wish to call it. The little I know about you, you do not come across as an intolerant person but someone who genuinely loved and loves Iran, however like in everything one can also at times love badly or wrongly ...

But back to the my main discourse with your assessments.

Republics are Not the quentessential progressive and democratic systems of governments. It is not because a given system is imperfect that a Revolution and a total dismantling of the State Apparatus will fix it or make it better.

The monarchy is intimately linked to Nation Building and how a nation identifies itself with the family or person that embodies it for better of for worse. It is not cult ridden but Oligarchy ridden. It is not egalitarian but it is every bit Democratic in it's Parliamentary form as in any secular and stable democratic Republic like in France or the United States ( Federal in this case). One can reject it philisophically as a pattern of thought but the fact that it still exists in many countries to this day and in Western Europe in particular in the shape of ceremonial and symbolic institutions as opposed to Absolute Monarchies proves that it is not to be dismissed as unrealistic or illegitimate.

It is precisely when the Republic experience proved not only disastrous but criminally bloody and nihilistic that nations have chosen to return to their old status quo through the process of a Restoration. Often to restore their lost dignity, very much like when a group of people have loved and lusted in an orgy and feel guilty for behaving irresponsibly at the expense of hurting those who genuinly loved them. Except that in this case the orgy in question has been mass killings, religious tyranny and moral and political corruption to such extents that make the Shah's deemed corruption seem ridiculous in comparison. Restoration is precisely What Great Britain did after Cromwell's Religious Republic.

Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

All the more that they went much further than us by even beheading their King and naming Cromwell as a Lord Protector precisely a Velayateh Fagih.

Not only America's Constitution but that of the  French Republic were inspired by the British Bill of Rights.

So the very concepts of democratic thought were born in the most Royalist country in the world: Great Britain !

Not surprising that Charles Dickens imagined the Tale of the Two Cities to show the contrast between the Reign of Terror in France and the British society which lived under a Parliamentary System of government: i.e: a Constitutional Monarchy.

If one can always find exceptions to the rule when it comes to history, it can be however said that All Monarchies that went through the process of Restoration achieved Democracy. That has been less the case in recent history particularly the 20th century ( that saw the rise of Totalitarian ideas and behaviors) for countries who having experienced a bloody revolution and established a Republic. Virtually all the countries in the Middle East which are Republics have turned into dictatorships where a Presidential dynasty has replaced the Royal Family. Saudi Arabia and the Oil Rich Emirates cannot be truly assimilated to any Constitutional Monarchy as is the case for Jordan for Instance or Morroco in North Africa even if they equally are founded based on a so called divine rule directly inherited from the Prophet Muhamed. The Saudis are merely a sophisticated tribal organization empowered by the Oil revenues which couldn't give a hoot about civil society or social and political progress even if their Kings or Sultans are Oxford Educated. I highly recommend the reading of Harold Robbins The Pirate to get an idea of the business ridden mindset that has superceded the religious dogmas on which these artificial kingdoms are founded ( also Read: Hollywood and Oil : Raiders of the Black Gold by Darius KADIVAR).   

Even in the case of the The most progressive Republics in the middle east amongst them Turkey is a democracy under military supervision which proves that to establish a perfect democratic system in this region is easier said than done.

And Revolution is certainly not the ideal or right solution either. Do Iranians deserve democracy and a better system of government in the future ( and preferably a near future)? Definitively YES !

But to reach that they have to first understand what Nation Building is about !

The Generation of '79 definitively did not !

Bakhtiar's intellectual legacy is precisely the road map towards that promising future of a Democratic State which respects human rights and individual freedoms.

That is why he suggested REGIME CHANGE based on RESTORING the Constitution of 1906 directly inspired by the European Constitutional Monarchies of the time.

It's here under your very nose :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNBFTWXz5_Q

Yet You people continue to want to distort that message and highjack his legacy to other means.

That to me is pure Hypocrisy to say the least.

I may get back to you on this thread based on your responses which I will read with great interest but I have some professional commitments today so you may not see me respond immediately.

Warm Regards nevertheless,

DK

Restoration Blogs:

RESTORATION: Elected Monarchs of Malaysia 

RESTORATION: The British Royal Family at Work (PBS : 7 Parts)

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

RESTORATION: Greek Constitutional Monarchy Toppled by Military Coup (April 21st, 1967)

RESTORATION: King Simeon II of Bulgaria, The Republican Prince

Royal History Forums:

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ? 

HISTORY FORUM:The Monarchy with David Starkey (Cambridge University)

dk, gee, such a hard choice

between chicks and pricks... (wonder how the vote on that would come out on ic?)

ari, about the outside conflict, many of us will do whatever is in our power to avert iri's outsourcing of further apparatus/alibi/casus belli of repression, but not falling for the bait. sad that our government often falls for the bait. i hope they'll think straight on this one and not aid and abet the iri unwittingly.

مجید خان

مجید خان،

صفا آوردید! کجا بودید این مدت؟ دیدن آواتار شما ما رو کلی‌ خوشحال و مسرور کرد!

Good to see you back

یک تفاوت عمده...........

در حکومت اوّلی بی سر و پا ها (شعبان جعفری ها، ملکه اعتضادی ها........) قیام میکنند و بعد می سپارند به تحصیلکرده ها  (٢٨ مرداد ١٣٣٢)

در حکومت دوّمی تحصیلکرده ها (علی اصغر حاج سید جوادی ها، به آذین ها..........)    قیام میکنند و بعد می سپارند به بی سر و پاها (٢ ٢ بهمن ١٣٥٧)

The King Get's to have the Chicks ...

It's Good to Be the King:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO99nL_at0o

the VF get's to have the Pricks:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QY1T-2f_KM

Let's kick it up a notch

Is the IRI a re-manifestation of the Safavids?  Or is it possible that it is the ultimate manifestation--or even a belated continuation--of the Safavids?

Here is One 'Way'

Velaiet Fagheieh is not passed down to sons or relatives of the vallehy.The valehy has to earn it not inheritate. There are many requirments

ram jams

hamsade

I was referring to Khomeini's VF style of theocracy, which by definition cannot evolve.

If we want to generalize it, then we must add a president, prime minister, tzar, king, VF, pope, and all forms of government. But then it won't be about monarchy and VF alone, it will instead be about all forms of dictatorship.

We can however choose to be selective based on our recent history.

VF is in fact an "evolution" of monarchy

VF is doing for the west what Shah could not even dream of doing. I mean think about it, in 1987 alone VF hanged anywhere between 5000 to 30,000 of the best abd brightest of the Iranian youths, simply because they were  "left wingers", or read a "wrong book" or had the wrong cassette or had a leaflet of rajavi, you name it!!! This deprived Iranin people of an entire generation of intellectuals and leaders and provided US with guaranteed supply of cheap oil and perfect excuse to maintain military presence in the middle east.

whichever way we slice it

the end result is an absolute ruler...a king.  The process may be different, but as a practical matter, the entity that rules Iran today is a king, albeit -as Oktaby points out--an asfal-ol-salefin, murderous thug king dressed in an "aba" and turban.  

I also agree with Oktaby that not since Europe in the Middle Ages, anything can be compared to what the IRI has done in Iran in the past 31 years.

Ari-  

 A smarter--though much more difficult to accept--strategy for the regime is to welcome serious political challenge, instead of trying to crush it.

Will never happen.  The IRI is a one trick pony when it comes to its survival instincts.  One can even call it smart.  It sticks to what it knows best, which is force and violence.  It has worked before, and there is no reason to "experiment" with other, less certain tactics. Think about it this way:  after last year's rigged elections, Khamenei had the best chance in the world to make himself the Gandhi of Iran by coming out and declaring the elections void.  he didn't even have to make it look so dramatic.  He could have just said that he orders a full recount because he has found some "irreegularities.  They could have then just "maast-maali" the whole thing and installed Mousavi as the President.  Think about it.  Mousavi would have been just as powerless as Khatami.  he would have made no serious challenge to the system, so there was very little risk.  And the return would have been enormous.  Khamenei would have been elevated to sainthood by the masses who would have seen him as a fair and neutral mediator.  There would have been international benefits as well.  The world would have seen the IRI as somewhat a democratic system which is responsive to the needs of its people, etc.  But they didn't do that?  Why?  Because the IRI is a thugocracy.  Once a thug, always a thug.  This is how they have survived for the past three decades, and this is how they will be as long as they hold power and they hold the guns.

jamshid

with all due respect, monarchy and vf are both forms of an oligarchy system of governance.  there are examples of both theocracy evolving into a democracy (ancient greece), and monarchy evolving into a democracy. granted, i don't know of a theocracy in modern times that has turned into a democracy. however, i believe that the clerics and military in iran will not permit this evolution until the resources in the country are sucked dry.  at this point, there's a tug of war of power between these two camps while they realize that the survival of each camp is essential to the survival of the other.

therefore, i think both systems belong in the same basket, and at the same time, there are numerous differences (some mentioned below).  i do agree with you that iran needs a secular form of government.

AO

Monarchy and VF are two distinct institutions. They cannot be placed in the same basket based on the attribute of dictatorship.

Monarchy can evolve to a democracy and does not have dictatorship as its prerequisite. And I am not talking about the Pahlavis, as the same could be said about Ghajars or any dynasty.

Khomeini's VF, by definition, must not and cannot evolve into a democracy. It will always remain a theological dictatorship.

What Iran needs today however is a secular republic.