Persian Realm

'Sohrab_Ferdows'

There are certain things that are unequivocal, unambiguous, and with an obvious degree of certainty -

The fact that the Shah left (Fled) our beloved Iran in 1979, and not staid behind to fight the Islamists, is an undeniable and indisputable fact - You are absolutely correct that we do not know 100% whether that would have worked or not -

Having said that, however, the bigger picture is that a True Leader would not abandon his country at such a time of need -

It should be said that the Shah did something similar back in 1953 - When things got tough with Dr. Mossadeq, again, he left (Fled) our beloved Iran to Rome -

While in Rome, he was seriously contemplating to become a gentleman-farmer in Connecticut, U.S., when the Americans and the British rescued him by setting up the coup against Dr. Mossadeq, and bringing him back -

What I'm trying to say is this: The mark of a True Leader, any leader, is to fight for his country, and not Flee - Unfortunately, Mohammad Reza Shah, unlike his father Reza Shah, lacked that quality -

Again, as I have said before, all of these are quite Well Documented ..... !

Speculations

Speculating about what "should have" been done or "would have" happened if certain things "would have" been done in certain ways, is just talking "after the facts". The facts that were not in the open for everyone to see (because they had not happened yet) even though a limited number of people (including late Dr. Shapur Bakhtiar) tried very hard to make people aware of them as they saw it. There is no question that "IF" late Shah stayed in Iran then things might have gone a different way but there is not a shred of evidence that if that would happen, things would be the way that people would like or praise today while not knowing anything about the realities of Islamic Republic system.

Today, there are many things that could be said or written about the events of the past but claiming that this person or that person should have had done this or that (after knowing the facts about those events today) is failing to understand the situation during the time frame which those events took place. Today, we could say that late Shah made a mistake for not killing Khomeini or leaving Iran but if those event would happen in a different way, Khomeini's tomb (either in Iran or Iraq), would probably have more visitors than it has today and Shah would be viewed as a bigger brutal monster than he was to some people (maybe even someone you might know), in those days. Considering now that we all "have seen" what Islamic Republic is, we can say, that would be much better but how do we know what would people think or do if monarchy would not fall and Islamic Republic would not happen? Would someone still consider killing Khomeini or Shah staying in the country right or wrong? I personally do not believe that we could say anything with full certainty about that.

Judging historical events and figures is not possible with "IF"s and "BUT"s. We can not make judgement about results of people's actions under certain circumstances "after the facts", and expect to reach a proper conclusion. That is just unfounded speculation.

'hirre'

The answer is not necessarily to kill a group, but to deal with them effectively -

The mamby-pamby approach that the Shah had towards the Mullahs was bound to fail - Regardless of whether one had the capabaility of seeing through the future -

As I Said, All Of These Are Pretty Well Documented ..... !

Yes R2

However the situation was scary back then. The communists were the biggest threat to the world and Iran had different organized communist parties and groups which were funded by the sovjet union. Keeping this in mind you see that it was hard for anyone to predict what kind of power the fundamentalists would gain. Most serious political experts didn't see the future risks before it was too late, therefore that shah could not see it either.

What the shah should have done (instead of killing different groups) which he didn't was to balance the political system and distribute his power to an open parlament. If he created a democracy back in the 50-60's then extremists would not be so popular as they became later on. Iran would have naturally gone through the democracy phases during that time, and that was from social democracy (with influences of communism) to more liberal democracies which we have today. All western countries went through those post-modern democracy phases back then...

If your answer is to kill someone in order to save the future, then you have already failed, because the foundation was wrong to start with...

'shushtari'

The Shah's approach to the Mullahs was appeasement - Over the years, he built many mosques, together with other things, thinking that he could buy their favors -

On the other hand, Reza Shah's approach to the Mullahs was confrontation - Many of the things that he accomplished while in power were opposed by the Akhounds -

The lesson that the Shah unfortunately never learnt was that when you are dealing with a Viper, you cut its head off - Not try and reason with it, or cajole it -

Consequently, he paid a huge price because of it, and we have been paying that price for the past 32 years -

As I have said before, All Of These Facts Are Well Documented ..... !

R2 I agree

actually, he should have killed khoemini in iraq- it would have been very simple- run him over with a fruit truck or something and say it was an accident!

this was way before the filthy traitors were training in lebanon in 1975

also, he should have not shown his cards and given the speech to the brits and americans in 1973.

so what if they would have resigned the contracts for oil!   we would have lost money on profits- BUT INSTEAD, TRILLION- YES, TRILLIONS, HAVE BEEN WASTED OVER THE PAST 32 YEARS.....and some of the best iran has had to offer have been killed to displaced- that is the real tragedy 

'amirparvizforsecularmonarchy'

The irrefutable fact is that had the Shah stayed in Iran, and resisted these Islamists, the history of our beloved Iran may have been completely different -

When the Shah left Iran, his army disintegrated - As you know, his Generals, Khosro-dad, Rahimi, etc., were one by one arrested, and subsequently executed -

These are the facts of history - All Well Documented ..... !

Correct word, "Crown Reza Pahlavi" the king of Iran.

 Our goal is to re-establish monarchy. Crown Reza Pahlavi will be the king of Iran soon. May God bless him and his family. Padeshahi is the only way to success and prosperity.

Payandeh Iran.

DK learn to use the correct words.

He was Not the Last Shah, but Late Shah.

Don't tell me you can fortune tell and mind read the iranian nation.

Same fools who blame shah

helped bring about iri or are their children and are incapable of thinking beyond jealousy or blame.

The Shah .....

would have been much better remembered, and fondly at that,  had he staid in Iran, and together with his army and Generals, stood up valiantly to the onslaught of the Mullahs and Islamists -

There are many in Iran today who directly blame the Shah for our present circumstances, for not putting up a good fight against this uncivilized bunch in charge right now -

There is no question in my mind that had there been a Reza Shah instead of a Mohammad Reza Shah back in '79, we would not be in the pickle that we are in tooday ;) !

That's The Simple Truth Of The Matter ..... !