Pahlavi on Iran's future

Reza Pahlavi's address to Constitutionalist Party of Iran

Washington, DC, November 22 2008.

Part I:

Part II:


Recently by Party GirlCommentsDate
1970's Iranian music treasures found!
Nov 08, 2009
A message of hope
Jun 27, 2009
Apr 01, 2009
more from Party Girl

YT try to understand this

by alimostofi on

As I have said we need an institution that defends Iranian culture against politics, religion, and commerce.  Call it what you will, I call it The Royal Institution.  Over the thousands of years many people have run this institution and have kept Iran from perverse ideologies.

Now there is nothing wrong with that statement.  Don't mix me with Pahlavis or anyone else, to justify your comments please.


Ali Mostofi




Faryar M.Do not expect 2 much

by neither the east, nor the west (not verified) on

I used to live in Sweden in late 70s and early 80s when Iran was in turmoil and the Islamic revolotion was taking place. The Iranian Embassy was occupied several times by the Iranian students and demonstrators. in one of these occupations some documents were realeased to the media in Sweden and one them was the Pahalvi Regime's fundings and support to the infamous "Fadaian-e-Eslam". Those who used to go uninvited to some Bahai meetings in Iran and cause trouble.(We had two very active Bahai neighbours in our street in Teheran and I witnessed it many times)Farah Pahlivi is very fiendish towards Non-Muslims in general and Bahais in particular.
This Family cannot be trusted.


Ali Mostofi

by YT (not verified) on

As i said earlier Reza Pahlavi needs people like you around him. That way when he talks he MIGHT think he is smart.

Besides Mr. Mostofi I am not insulting you, I am only insulting your stupid philosophy. Words that you are using, no matter what meaning you attach to them DOES NOT exist jenab. Democracy, which i quoted for you from Merriam-Webster dictionary, does NOT mean Free Market, or as you put it [Commerce Democracy].

Free market as it is defined in economics refers to a [economic market that operates by means of FREE COMPETITION].

Now my dear friend, if you Pahlavichi's wanna govern with [sechoob] or [chaharchoob], keep in mind that integrity of any government and freedom of its citizens are guaranteed and protected by CONSTITUTION and LAW not by [sechoob or chaharchoob]

Thanks God that Reza Pahlavi has supporters like you, who else would PAY to listen to his ARAJEEFS???.

good day Sir


YT and Intelligent Person: read this and learn

by alimostofi on

Commerce Democracy is my way of saying Free Market.  Can you try to understand this simple concept, instead of having fun making fun of me.

The various parties will govern if they are elected, but the other sechoob have to be represented so that the politicians do not use nationalism, or religion, or money to get power.

Now if you read what I wrote properly, you would realise that the same concepts exist for the other three.  The religious people will not be allowed into politics or nationalism.  And the markets cannot get involved in religion, politics or nationalism.

It is not that difficult to understand.  Or are you just having fun?  Believe me the Pahlavis get enough from me for wasting time.



Ali Mostofi




Ali Mostofi

by YT (not verified) on

Mr. Mostofi,
More I read your posts, more I become aware how preposterous, uneducated and stupid they really are.

To begin with, where in the heavens did you come up with the term "Commerce Democracy" ?? The term does not exist in any dictionary nor it exists in any encyclopedia. I am sure you have heard the terminology in the lectures of your Reza Pahlavi. How typical!!

Secondly, you say:

[In the US in particular, there is no continuity, as one goes from one party to another. It is as if you are dealing with a different country every time, there is a new political party.]

Mr. Mostofi, it is in a DEMOCRACY where more than one party or group of people participate in government of the country. Unlike Shah's One party tyranny [Rastakhize Meli], parties, by design, have different ways that they govern.
FYI, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Democracy as:
[a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections]

With that definition in mind, parties and groups that participate in a FREE election, have distinct ways when it comes to economic, political and social philosophies. Case example is USA(since u mentioned it). What you call alleged dis-continuity is 2 different methods of achieving same goal, which is higher standard of living for society as a whole, and protecting individual freedom (exceptions noted when it comes to corrupt executives such as Mr. Bush and the gang).

In short Mr. Mostofi, stop blabbering Pahlavi's system of democracy, and start READING a little bit, you might find it useful. And please, unless you are a Nobel Prize winner in political science, DON'T MAKE UP WORDS such as Commerce Democracy.

Have a nice day.



by Intelligent Persian (not verified) on

Mr. Ali Mostofi,
I have to admit you are a very funny comedian. Well, we can't expect anything else from a Shahaollahi that perhaps Shaaban Bimokh and Ardeshir Zahedi are his/her beloved national heroes and Ashraf Pahlavi his/her Mother Teresa. Self-deception is worse problem of you Shah-Lovers.



by alimostofi on

No the flag of USA does not change, and in India Nazi do not take charge.  But look at the way cultural interests play into politics when there really should be more discussions on economics.  In the US in particular, there is no continuity, as one goes from one party to another.  It is as if you are dealing with a different country every time, there is a new political party.  And finally, the US system is the case of Commerce Democracy.  Business rules US democracy.  That is not right.  As I have mentioned in my other post, there are four areas of power that can dominate the country and must be kept in check.


Ali Mostofi




Re: Imagine, Hoshyaar

by Ramin007 (not verified) on

I really don't want to dignify this man's accusations with an answer.

So I humbly ask all the other readers who for even the slightest moment have accepted any of these ludicrous accusation, to please investigate for themselves the truth of the matter.



Re: One Common Faith

by Ramin007 (not verified) on

Dear Mr. Joubin Houshyar,

I think you have completely misunderstood the Statement from the Universal House Justice.

The Paragraph 47, refers to harsh penalties that exists in old religions such Islam and Jewish Faith, such as stoning and cutting arms and legs. ( an eye for an eye etc). it explains that in those societies where these religions were born, such as Saudi Arabia of 1400 years ago, there was no alternative, i.e. no prisons or rehabilitation centers, psychiatrist etc.

Therefore the religious laws were so harsh to ensure maximum impact on moral consciousness of society.

In today's world, we have alternatives, so you do not have to stone somebody to death for adultery.( i hope you agree)

So I not think that you need to worry about anybody " modifying your Behavior", and making you a Baha'i.

Please read the statements carefully before jumping to conclusions.

With Kindest regard


شما خودتان چی حالی تان می شود که از همه چیز ایراد می گیرید قدر ا


شما خودتان چی حالی تان می شود که از همه چیز ایراد می گیرید قدری احترام لطفا و همدیگر رو انقدر خراب نکنید


Ali Mostofi

by YT (not verified) on

wooow, that is an interesting logic. So you mean in rest of the world which are republics ( Exceptions noted), they have no safe guards against tyranny?

I suppose in your logic there are no room for CONSTITUTION?????, Rule of LAW???? Power of Public?? People's representation in the government????

according to you then , is that why for example flag of the USA changes after every election????? and according to you, in for example India ( which happens to be Largest democracy/republic) Nazis take over every time there is an election????

no wonder Reza Pahlavi has supporters like you.
Shaer mige: Har dam az in bagh bari miresad,,,, Tazeh tar tazeh tari miresad.


Djahangir - answer on why you need Monarchy

by alimostofi on

A Constitutional Monarchy, would not let the flag or the national anthem, and many other elements of our cultural heritage, to be changed by politicians, theocrats, or commerce. The Constitution would clearly define each of these four areas (Charchoob). Democracy is allowed to flourish, but not be abused.

In a Republic, where Democracy is the "be and end all of everything", there is no system that safeguards against any intransigence on behalf of democracy in politics, religion, or capital. Democracy would be abused to do many things.  You could get a Theocratic Republic, where religious democracy goes mad. Or you could have Nationalist Republic, where you could have Nazis going mad in the name of nationalism.  And finally you could have Capitalist Republic, where markets decide everything.

In short, you can't put everything to the vote.

That is as clear as I can put it to you Djahangir.

Ali Mostofi




by Djahangir on

Why does Iran or any other country needs a monarchy.  Stop living in the past.  Future is full of promise without the monarchs.



"Lets face it" is just plain wrong

by Cyrus Tabatabai (not verified) on

The US controls Iran's future. The US will not permit a constitutional monarchy. The only future for Iran is a democratic republic.


Let's face it.. Iranians can

by letsfaceit (not verified) on

Let's face it.. Iranians can not work together and there will never be a US type democracy in Iran. The country can easily be broken apart by too many forces and actors and factors. It is best to go for constitutional monarchy and Reza Pahlavi is modern. Arab countries under their own monarchies have even made many steps forward. The revolution was the biggest mistake Iranians made in the last century and it is time to undo the damage.


Party Girl...

by Amir Khosrow Sheibany (not verified) on

Thank you for posting something meaningful for once.

Javid Shah. Shahanshah.


Faryam......... Shah and Bahai's

by YT (not verified) on

As an Iranian, who is a Muslim, I do sympathies with you and all Bahai's. Their persecution throughout the history has been totally unjust and brutal. But my dear friend lets not forget what Pahlavi's did, or should i say did NOT do to protect their Bahai citizens. please take a note of this excerpt:

[.....During the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, due to the growing nationalism and the economic difficulties in the country, the Shah gave up control over certain religious affairs to the clergy of the country. This resulted in a campaign of persecution against the Bahá'ís.[66] They approved and coordinated the anti-Bahá'í campaign to incite public passion against the Bahá'ís started in 1955 and included the spreading of anti-Bahá'í propaganda in national radio stations and official newspapers............]

Faryam, Pahlavi Dynasty and what ever is left of it, has no intention of protecting Iranians let alone Bahai's. Their only interest lies in themselves and filling up their own pockets. Let history teach us lessons about this blood sucking dynasty.

Have a wonderful day


To all "Shah Parastan"

by YT (not verified) on

Before I scribble my penny's worth, I have to make it clear that I not a monarchist nor am I a supporter of IRI. As a matter of fact I hate them equally. With that said:

I am surprised and perhaps astonished to see how some people "bahbah o bahbah and chahchah o chahchah) when this retard Reza Pahlavi takes a podium. let me bring to your attention what Shah did with his Rastakhize Melli back in 1975 with the help of USA and Amir Abbase Hoveyda and I quote :

[......, by 1975, he[Shah] abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The Shah’s own words on its justification was; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t.... A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”.[22] In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz.]

does this sound familiar???? or is it that I heard wrong when Nimche-Shah-Wanna-Be Reza Pahlavi just said in his lecture?????

For all of you, who call this retard a patriot, I shall bet you a dime that the only reason he has put on the Patriotism clothing is that he is pissed that him and his washed-up gang of supporter are NOT getting piece of the loot that Akhunds are getting. I bet you the same dime, if these same akhunds were to send him some monthly wage, he will shut up.
And if any of you think that this guy and his gang are the salvation of Iran and Irani from the hellish life that Akhunds have created you are living in a lala land.

Wake up people and come to 21st century. Monarchy is a dead and forgotten way to lead a country.

P/S: At least Amir Abbas Hoveyda was man enough to stay in the country and get murdered for what he believe in. BUT Shah-e-BOZDEL fled like a RAT.



by Abol (Lall) Danesh, Ph.D. in Sociology (not verified) on

Mr. Cyrus Tabatabai...

could you please find out how much he is paid after down with his sermon in hard cold cash...

--Zabaan-e| sorkh meedehad "jeeb" raa be baad---
--Manzel? On ham momkenast ravad bebaad---
---hesaab baanki? on ke hatmanast be havaa va be baad--


I have a clip

by Cyrus Tabatabai (not verified) on


Sun ...

by Abol H. Danesh (not verified) on

It appears at this time Iran has two separate with sun and lion and sword for the day time... the other with red flame for night time...

What puzzles me is this: Why is that the day flag has no money of its own in circulation where as the night flag has all the money in circulation?

I am smelling something fishy here ... Right Mr. Pahlavi and Mr. Ahmadinejad?

Flag = Money



Some of the slogans I remember from 77-78

by Sheipoori (not verified) on

Koorosh be pa khiz, Gandesh dar amad!

Chaapeed shah!

Azhari ye bichareh, bazam begoo navareh!
Navar ke pa nadareh, inham si-sad hezareh?

(Arteshbod azhari said the protestors were buch of thugs and has no popular base)

Bakhtiar...Nokar bi ekhtiar!

It is so interestin that the idiot shahparasts say Mollahs are arabs. Meanwhile, the only country who was sincerely loyal to Shah badbakht was an Arab (Egypt). I sometimes wonder how politically idiots are these shahparasts!!!!!

Sen McGlinn

Don't discard monarchy too easily

by Sen McGlinn on

England, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark ... constitutional monarchies that work. Why?


The first advantage of having a constitutional crown is that one doesn't have an elected president -- so real power is vested in a cabinet, and the leader of the government has to continually ensure support in cabinet and the party caucus and in parliament. It leads to more consultative, rational decision-making in the executive, and it makes it possible to oust the leader between elections if he or she really loses it -- either by a cabinet coup, by electing a new leader at the party caucus, or by Members of Parliament crossing the floor in parliament. The monarch, by theoretically holding "supreme power" (including head of the armed forces, of the civil services etc) but not exercising power, prevents any other single person within the system claiming that power. It would be lesse majesteit, really not done old chap. But the monarch cannot have the ambition to actually exercise power, because he or she has not a shred of a mandate: they are there by a trick of fate, like jury members. As soon as you elect your presidents, they start to feel they have some sort of mandate for political action, as well as having all that power. So presidential systems tend to slide towards giving some actual power to the President. France is an example -- both parliament & government on the one hand, and the president on the other, have democratic mandates, and they are continually struggling about who gets what, and who is to blame.

The second advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that one doesn't have periodic presidential elections, during which the office of president becomes the subject of a party political tug-of-war. One still has a period of campaigning for parliamentary elections, and the process of forming a government coalition after the elections, but during this period the monarch is there as titular head, and the ministers of the outgoing government can continue to provide routine leadership to their ministries -- without any mandate to make policy changes -- because they are in theory the Queen's ministers. In any parliamentary system, there is a point after the election results are known, when someone must be designated the winner and asked to form the next government. The parliamentary system being cyclical, it comes to a sort of still point at the top of the cycle where it needs a bit of a push -- a point where someone outside the parliament has to formally draw the conclusion that the election results indicate. You can give this job to an elected president who represents one or other party, or to a supreme court judge who may have been appointed by one of the contestants in the election, or to a hereditary monarch who has been kept out of party politics from birth. 

Belgium is another constitutional monarchy - and while it is not a country that "works" very well, it is a country that would be impossible without the monarchy, because if it had a president, there would be an enormous fight over whether he would be French or Walloon, Socialist or right-wing. 

Afghanistan is a country that should have a constitutional monarchy and cabinet government. Spain is an example of a restoration of democracy in which the monarchy played a crucial role. 

Learn from history, learn from the world

~ Sen McGlinn


What I can do, is keep my arm
from bringing others any harm.
How can I give the enviers ease?
They are themselves their own disease.
(Sa'di, Gulestan 1:5)

Email: Sen.Sonja[at]Casema.



by Arash Afshar (not verified) on

Iran needs a monarchy, but I don't think Reza Pahlavi can ever fill the shoes of his grandfather. Reza Shah is the ideal that Iran should be seeking. Not the current Reza Pahlavi. Not a corrupt democracy where money can manipulate everything. Not an Islamic Republic that tries to destroy and replace Iranian culture. A truly Iranian Iran, with a strong, nationalist leader who will stand against its opponents and restore true Iranian culture.

Iran was being divided up between British capitlists, Soviet communists, and dirty mullahs until Reza Shah, with 1,200 cavalrymen, rode into Tehran and took Iran back from them, and made Iran a great nation again. That's the type of leader that is needed now.


They all sound the same

by Alborzi (not verified) on

Back in 1981, my sister had been killed in a demonstration in Iran, I was so angry at IRI that I started going to ISA meetings, they had some interesting rules like the public meeting and private (where I could not attend) but the fascinating part is that they all sounded the same, they use very educated words but in fact its just hot air, they just like to feel like they are the opposition, meanwhile Iranian oppositions in Iran have their own problems that has nothing to do with these fancy talkers. I bet you he was wearing a Christian Dior suit and the poor Iranians are struggling for rice.



by ali12 (not verified) on

you guys should NOT call yourselves iranians or even muslims!
and to the guy who wrote about carter going to iran!- I want some of the stuff you're smoking! I hope you were joking, because this same idiot- carter- single-handedly delivered our nation to the dirty akhoonds...I know a place where he can put his noble prize-
and obama/biden represent his 2nd coming- mullahs are doing champagne toasts as we speak
I support RP all the way- he has every right to save iran from this cancer which has lasted over 30 years-


To Cyrus Tabatabai

by Fat chance (not verified) on

OB might do just that! but I bet that mullahs will send Jimmy back to the States like a dog with his tail between his legs. Mullahs do want talks for the sake of talks to STALL for as long as possible so that they can finish up building their bomb. Then they think they will have the U.S. and the world vis-a-vis a fait accompli and can blackmail them into submission to their will.

The whole Iranian establishment ideologically is at odds with the United States. Yes mullahs love American dollars, they love American oil companies to invest in Iran's oil and gas sector so that mullahs can fill their pockets wiht more petrodollars but it ends right there. How can they possibly have normal political relationships with each other?!!

Either the US should relinquish and distance herself from being whatever she has always stood for/supported (e.g. democracy, human rights, support for Israel, etc., etc.) and bends to mullahs' demands or IR as we know it should cease to exist.


This sick tree

by T.h.e.P.o.p.e. (not verified) on

hasn't produced any fruits for 30 years. It's a 30 year old sickness. An old infection that even remedy for its roots will not cure it. So the only way to deal with it, is to burn it down COMPLETELY and plant a new disease-free tree. One without any taazee infection.

Reza C. Pahlavi, we support you all the way.


Jimmy Carter should hold Direct Talks with Iran

by Cyrus Tabatabai (not verified) on

James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924) served as the thirty-ninth President of the United States from 1977 to 1981, and was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

He is a great person. He is a Great American. President Hussein Obama should send President Carter to Tehran to hold direct talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the President and former President are Democrats.

This action would usher in a new era of peace in the middle east.


Simple Logic dictates....

by faryarm on

Dear Friends, Including Jaleho :)

Stop This....Simple logic dictates that  a Sick tree needs remedy to its roots and not to its branches...That means we need to rebuild our country from the bottom up. We need to learn values long forgotten to unite us..

All ideological arguments of the last 30 to 100 years have offered nothing but medicine to the Branches..destructive medicine so it seems...

We will continue to bicker about personalities and systems and continue to regress until we find something that can touch our hearts and unite us...

Love of country is not enough; these days we need love for humanity and Justice..

I don't need to restate what i think is that medicine for the soul of Iran and its lovers.