Lies The Iranian Revolutionaries Told You

(Note: This was originally going to be a video for my 'Politically Incorrect Truth About Monarchy' series but the new Windows10 sound recorder is not compatible with the Windows10 movie-making program. Go figure. I only have an outline for those things -because I don't want to sound like I'm just reading things- but I took that and 'fleshed it out' into this piece. Not something I would normally do but since I had already said I was going to do the video, and that is no longer possible, this was the only way to go. -MM)

When it comes to revolutions, many people have an incorrect view of them, an overly romanticized view. However, most manage to get the basic facts across, they simply try to justify the bad points in the name of the greater good of “the revolution”. However, the Islamic Revolution in Iran might just stand alone as being the most dishonest revolution in history. Its story is one of lies from beginning to end. For the sake of convenience I have boiled these down to four big categories of lies that the Iranian revolutionaries have told the world. Unfortunately, as time goes on, more and more people seem to give up and accept their dishonest version of events, though the recent declassification of a great deal of reports and correspondence by the U.S. government has shed new light on some of these lies, even some that were clung to by the Carter administration. So, let’s get started with:

Lie #1: The Shah was forcing western culture on Iran
This is a total lie. The Shah brought more freedom to Iran and rolled back the policies of his father who actually had tried to force Iran to westernize/modernize. It was his father who actually passed laws forcing men to wear bowler hats (no joke) and forbidding women to wear the veil. The last Shah, his son, did away with that and gave people the freedom to adopt western styles if they wanted to. A woman didn’t have to wear a veil, but she could if she wanted to. He also enacted real freedom of religion in Iran, which oddly enough I have even heard some people criticize him for, but remember that the current regime claims to have freedom of religion as well, it is only that everyone knows this is another lie and no one takes it seriously. It should also be remembered that many of the cultural aspects people (especially westerners) associate with Iran is actually not part of Iranian culture at all. Much of it is not really Iranian or Islamic but is simply Arab and dates back to the Arab conquest of the old Sassanid empire.

The Immortals

This is important as, on the cultural front, what really caused the Shah trouble with the radical clerics was NOT that he was making Iran too western but that he was making Iran more Iranian. The Shah worked to revive classical Persian culture in a number of ways, from the military to art and architecture. This was an effort to revive popular awareness of the ancient roots of their country and of the glory days of the Persian Empire when what is now Iran had been the most powerful country in the known world, stretching across three continents. However, the radical clerics despised this effort because it was giving attention to the period in Iranian history before the arrival of Islam and they, like others, preferred to pretend that before Islam there was nothing. They dismissed the Shah’s cultural campaign as praising primitive, pagan fire-worshippers when this early period was the time of the zenith of power and prestige for Iran.

This would be like the Christians trying to stamp out all memory of the Roman Empire because it had been pagan. As we know, Christian Europe achieved its greatest cultural flowering when the classical art and literature of pagan Greece and Rome were rediscovered. The Shah was trying to do the same thing in Iran. As an example, one of things that offended the clerics the most was his adoption of a new calendar. Previously Iran had used the Muslim calendar, imported by the Arabs, which marked time starting from the flight of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. The Shah instituted a new calendar that marked time from the Persian conquest of Babylon (modern Iraq) which was obviously a uniquely Iranian model, focused on the greatest victory in Persian history. The clerics, of course, detested this and his other efforts. However, it is also important to note that, because their accusations were lies, a number of the same policies that the Ayatollah and his kind denounced when enacted by the Shah were quietly retained by the Islamic Republic after they took power. Because many of his modernizations worked and the mullahs all knew that they worked.

Lie #2: The Shah was a puppet of the United States of America
Probably the most widely believed and oft-touted of the lies the revolutionaries tell, mostly because it gains traction the more unpopular the U.S.A. becomes, it is nonetheless untrue. I have long found it very amusing the people who hate America have so much in common with those who worship America. One thinks America does nothing good and the other that America does nothing bad but both believe that America is the center of the world and all life revolves around Washington DC. It is utter nonsense. First of all, this accusation tends to come from the episode in which the Shah was briefly overthrown but was restored to the throne with the assistance of the British and American intelligence agencies. The untold truth here is that the British always had far more interest in Iran than the Americans did. The British had interest in Iran going back a very long time, the British had established most of the oil industry in Iran and it was the British, not the Americans, who were the driving force behind the restoration of the Shah. It is only when British power began to decline and American power began to rise up that the U.S.A. became the great bogeyman.

He who sups with the devil must have a long spoon

The Shah was, of course, friendly with the United States and for the very good reason that he was concerned about the threat of the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. It tends to be forgotten, outside of Iran anyway, that the expansion of the Russian Empire (whose territory was taken over by the Soviets) in the region came at the expense of the old Persian Empire. Even today, while Russia goes on arming the Iranian regime, this is something Iranians have not forgotten. The Shah remembered it and Iranians today do as well, which makes all the assistance they receive from Russia absurdly naïve. The Shah, though friendly with the United States, was often critical of America just as American leaders were often critical of him. He took a great deal of criticism from America over oil prices but it largely depended on which political party was in power in Washington DC. Democrats tended to be very critical of the Shah whereas Republicans were focused on the threat of communism and did not really care how the Shah ruled his country as long as he was on side against the communists.

President Jimmy Carter, for example, stopped the sale of weapons to Iran because he disapproved of the Shah. Also, in a broader context, while Iran was friendly with the U.S. and did recognize the State of Israel, Iran had far more and friendlier relations with the rest of the Islamic community than Iran has today. Under the Shah, Iran was on very good terms with Saudi Arabia and with Egypt (the Shah’s first wife was from the Egyptian Royal Family) both of which today are enemies of Iran. When the Shah was in power, American influence was largely absent from the region as he was the ‘policeman’ of the Persian Gulf and worked to assist royalists against communists in neighboring countries. This was not something that the United States would typically do, usually preferring to back a third option that inevitably failed.

Lie #3: The Ayatollah stood up to the evil Americans
Like the previous lie, the mullahs in Iran have gotten a great deal of mileage out of this lie, particularly as America becomes more unpopular. The Ayatollah Khomeini is portrayed as the courageous man of principle who stood up to the big, bad American wolf. In fact, the Ayatollah was a liar from start to finish who lied to everyone and we now know from recently declassified documents that he actively courted the support of the United States and tried his best to tell American leaders everything they wanted to hear. We also now know that, despite the lies the Carter administration has been telling for years, that they made a conscious decision to abandon the Shah and did not think the Ayatollah would be so bad (which shows how incompetent Carter and crew were, if any more evidence were needed on that front).

The Iranian Imperial Family

Again, it depended on which party was in power in Washington as the Ayatollah knew early on which side was most likely to believe him. We now know that in 1963 he sent a letter of support to President John F. Kennedy (Democrat) but knew better than to waste his time on President Richard Nixon (Republican). The Ayatollah lied, lied and lied again to the American government and, unfortunately, some of them believed him. He said that he wanted MORE of an American presence in Iran, not less, so as to offset the influence of the British and Soviets in the country. We now know that President Carter strongly and bluntly “advised” the Shah to leave the country for a “vacation” and that this would likely mean the end of his regime. They naively hoped for a third option (a familiar song, yes?) between the Shah and the Ayatollah, probably a military figure who would have a new, republican regime with the Ayatollah acting as a sort of pope-like spiritual advisor. Again, the incompetence of the Carter administration staggers the imagination.

For his part, the Ayatollah continued with his lies, telling the Americans he was their friend, promising that he would keep his country “un-aligned” in the Cold War, would continue to do business with America, would keep strong the military ties between the United States and Iran and that he would continue to sell America oil. In fact, he promised to sell oil to everyone with only two exceptions: Israel and South Africa, which is rather interesting. He was most concerned about the Iranian army and the royalist generals who he feared would be able to stop any uprising he could instigate if they really came out in force. However, his Democrat friend in Washington helped him out on this front. As well as condoning the return of the Ayatollah to Iran, the Carter administration passed word to the Ayatollah that most of the Iranian military leadership was not so royalist as everyone believed and that they would likely go along with whoever was able to take power. When the Ayatollah was timid, President Carter gave him the confidence he needed to go ahead.

Lie #4: The Islamic Revolution was a counter-revolution.
This is possibly the most absurd but I have heard it repeated too often, invariably by people on the far-right, not to point it out. This is the lie that claims that the Shah was some sort of radical progressive and that the Islamic Revolution brought things back to normal, made Iran a more traditional and conservative country than had previously been the case. It is hard to even think about it without laughing. This may be a good example of a big lie being more readily believed than a small one because this is a very big lie. The Ayatollah and his crew were revolutionaries plain and simple, in both the political and the religious spheres alike.

Plenty of Ayatollah idolatry

On the religious front, the Ayatollah came late in light to a radically different religious point of view than had ever existed in Shia Islam. As his goal of power came closer, he became more and more megalomaniacal and claimed unprecedented powers for himself. He preached a new brand of religion that even seemed to put himself above Mohammed. The Ayatollah essentially said, particularly after returning to Iran, that he spoke for God and that anyone who went against what he said was an enemy of God. Whereas clerics had always been more important in Shia Islam as compared to Sunni Islam, the Ayatollah and his regime took this to absurd lengths, claiming them to be without sin, spiritually superior beings who had to be obeyed like gods themselves. And, on the political front, the Islamic Revolution actually, in some ways, made Iran more westernized than before. In all their thousands of years of history, Persia/Iran had always been a monarchy, under the Ayatollah they became a republic and they claim (though we know it is a lie) to be democratic, so they got rid of the Shah which was a traditional title unique to Iranian history but retained or brought in political ideas from ancient Greece and Rome.

As mentioned before, they also quietly retained some of the same reforms that the Shah had instituted in their own constitution and which they had previously denounced as being the work of the devil when the Shah did it. These people, or more so their supporters, actually embrace the exaltation of the lie by condemning things the Shah did while praising the regime of the mullahs for claiming to be liberal, democratic, religiously tolerant and respecting of human rights because everyone knows they actually do not. What is more, while the Shah was friendly with the rest of the Islamic world and supported traditional governments, the mullah-regime has made enemies of most Islamic countries and tried to export their radicalism abroad. Which, by the way, is another lie as the Ayatollah specifically promised NOT to do this. He followed the typical revolutionary pattern of waiting for the strong monarch to be removed and then jumping on a liberal, moderate regime which is easily defeated to bring radicalism to power. He lied to the Iranians just as he lied to the Americans and everyone else, it has been nothing but lies from beginning to end.

Theocrat & Atheist, what an odd couple

Finally, what is perhaps most ironic given that the most oft-repeated lie about the last Shah is that he “sold out” his country to the United States, is that the Islamic regime has actually done what they had falsely accused the Shah of doing and even to a far greater extent. The cozy Iranian relationship with Christian Russia may seem bizarre but that is actually the least objectionable. So far, that relationship has been all to the benefit of Iran and the detriment of Russia. They get Russian weapons, they get to sell their oil, driving prices down and hurting the Russian economy and so grow stronger while Russia grows weaker in a region where Iran hopes to regain territory previously lost to the Russians. No, the big sell-out has been to Communist China. How is that for an Islamic Republic, selling-out to an officially atheist regime that persecutes Muslims in Xinjiang.

Chinese oil and gas companies today have far more reach in Iran than the British oil companies ever did. China has been granted billions of dollars worth of extensive contracts over Iranian mineral resources and even, going farther than anyone ever has, over Iranian territory itself. In 2011 Iran agreed to give to China exclusive mineral rights over three large oil and gas fields in Iran. China has total control over these areas, exclusive rights to the energy underground and will do the drilling, bring in Chinese workers to handle things and even have Chinese personnel in charge of security in all of these areas. It was also announced, particularly when there was concern over a U.S. or Israeli attack to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, that these three territories in Iran are considered Chinese and any attack on them would be responded to as an attack on China. Those are the facts. The Shah never “sold-out” Iran but the Ayatollahs and their puppet presidents certainly have. They have sold it out completely and quite literally.

Mad Rant: Befriending Revolutionary Iran

Any monarchist today should be as appalled as I am at the number of people today who have any sympathy or, worse yet, support for the Islamic Republic of Iran. One can see this on both ends of the political spectrum and even among groups claiming to be neither left or right. You hear, in the west, people on the left saying that Iran is the poor, put upon victim of western bullying and that the countries of the west are somehow making the Iranian regime violent and belligerent by refusing to treat them the same as other countries that do not do things like stone people to death or sponsor terrorism around the world. On the other hand, there are those on the far right who have adopted the Iranian regime as some sort of hero for doing things like defying the liberal west, calling for violence against Israel and executing homosexuals. Then, there are also those few in the libertarian camp who argue that if we would only adopt a free trade treaty with Iran, they would eventually be converted to western liberalism through the benefits of capitalism. It makes for quite a witch’s supper with religious radicals being on the same side as socialist and capitalist atheists. However, as a monarchist, it astounds and disgusts me even more that anyone describing themselves as a monarchist or any sort of believer in traditional authority could be in any way sympathetic or supportive of the current Islamic Republic of Iran.

The current Islamic regime came to power by means of a violent revolution that was co-opted (as so many revolutions are) by an exiled fanatic who was a traitor to his country, his sovereign and, I dare say, even his religion. It shocks me that anyone considering themselves a monarchist could be in support of this. Iran was a strong constitutional monarchy in which the monarch had a powerful and central position, who was revered as a father figure to his people and he was brought down by a riotous and seditious mob, forced into exile and threatened and persecuted for the rest of his life. Yet, somehow, though the logic of it escapes me, some have truly adopted the mentality that any sort of progress is a sign of evil (though evidently not computers and the internet based on how often I hear from them) and that the Imperial State of Iran was worthy of death for such ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as allowing western cinema into the country or allowing women to wear short skirts. Some people, claiming to be monarchists (and I say “claiming” because in this case they support the revolutionary republicans) somehow think that in the case of Iran it was the revolutionaries who were the true “conservatives” and that the last Shah and his monarchy were some sort of European social democracy with rampant immorality, secularism and perhaps even atheism (after all, they made peace with Israel and what sort of “good Muslim” doesn’t want to kill every Jew on earth?).

That anyone claiming to be a monarchist or a lover of tradition could have any sympathy at all for the Islamic Republic of Iran, frankly, leaves me nearly speechless. Like the proverbial mosquito in the nudist colony, I know what to do, I just don’t know where to start. If you are a monarchist, if you are a traditionalist, if you believe that not everything in life should be subject to change on the whim of the temporary majority, there is absolutely, positively no reason, at all, for you to support the Islamic Republic. Anyone should be able to see, that is, anyone with any measurable intelligence, should be able to see that, beyond the superficial things like (gasp) women being educated, wearing short skirts or people going to see Hollywood movies, the Imperial State of Iran was far more traditional at heart than anything that has succeeded it. It looked with pride back on the entirety of Persian history and not merely that most recent Islamic era and it maintained the existing, traditional views of religion (yes, religion) and politics that had far deeper roots than anything the Islamic revolutionaries later came up with. Iran, under its last dynasty, was going through something of a mini-Renaissance, in some ways similar to the Renaissance experienced by Catholic Europe.

In both cases, ancient civilizations were being rediscovered that had flowered before the adoption of the dominant religion (Christianity in Europe, Islam in Iran). In both cases there was also an opening up, to a degree, to different styles and ideas and in both cases there were some religious fanatics who preached fundamentalism and condemned everything around them. In Europe, the Pope had such figures hauled before the inquisition and handed over to the secular authorities for execution. In Iran the answer was exile to France (not exactly a harsh punishment). Those who claim that a few movies and mini-skirts made the Iran of the Shah some sort of modern, progressive, radical state purposely ignore the fact that one of the things the religious dissident fanatics were most upset about was the rediscovery and celebration of the ancient, pre-Islamic Persian Empire and the styles of that glorious past when Persia was the dominant power in the known world. If you believe in honoring and celebrating history and tradition, your sympathies should be entirely with the Shah and not the traitors who drove him from power. In some ways, his regime was more traditional than any had been in that land for centuries. From the exalted nature of the monarch to his personal guard known as “The Immortals” the Imperial State of Iran stood on a foundation of history and tradition far more ancient than that even claimed by those who tore it all down.

However, the claim is often made that traditionalists or conservatives should have been opposed to the Imperial State of Iran because there were very un-Islamic things like nightclubs, cinemas and, again, those vile skirts that caused innocent men to be driven into frenzies of lust by the sight of a calf or perhaps even a bit of thigh. Obviously, I am making somewhat light of this because I do not consider it a damnable offense for a woman to allow her ankles to be seen in public but then, I am not a Muslim. However, back in my university days I did study Islam and the history of the Middle East (from Egypt to Iran was our definition) and so, while not an expert, I am not totally ignorant of the subject and will make my thoughts known (it is your choice to read them or not). From my understanding, if we are to assume that one is a Shiite Muslim as the majority of Iranians are, there is still absolutely no justification for anyone supporting the Islamic revolutionary regime. As I recall, Shiite Islam was based on the idea that no one can speak for God until the Mahdi, the expected one, comes from heaven to lead the faithful to their ultimate triumph. The Ayatollah broke, radically, with this long-established, traditional view of Shiia Islam by claiming unprecedented powers for the Shiite clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In doing this, the Ayatollah showed himself to be a revolutionary in religion as well as politics. The basis of Shiite Islam is that only God can appoint the religious leader and guardian on earth and so there was an emphasis on the original family line of the Prophet Mohammed. As a result, the Shiite branch of Islam has always had a more prominent part for clerics than in Sunni Islam, however, under the Ayatollah this was radically expanded to ridiculous proportions so that imams became infallible, sinless and were treated with such subservient devotion that one could be forgiven for thinking they had been exalted above Mohammed himself. Powers and privileges which were traditionally exclusive to the hidden, Twelfth Imam were massively usurped by the Ayatollah and his clerical-republican regime. So, on the one hand, you have the Shah, who was a religious man and a staunch Muslim from the day he was born until the day he died, exercising political authority based on centuries of traditions (or even millennia if we go back to ancient Persia) and on the other hand we have an Ayatollah whose entire theory regarding the justification of his own authority dated back no farther than 1970. Surely, anyone can see which is the more traditional.

Today, although we have touched on this in the past, it bears repeating, we also have those who at least sympathize with the forces of the Islamic Revolution in Iran because they claim to oppose the decadence and immorality of the modern west. That mentality, is not only stupid, it is stupid to the point of being suicidal. It is suicidal because these types seem not to grasp the fact that these fanatics consider the west at its most religious and conservative to be just as immoral as in our own liberal, permissive, present day. These are people who would hold the Christians of the Middle Ages as perverse because they danced touching each other, who would condemn the Popes as immoral for having nudes painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, people who were calling America the “Great Satan” back in the days of Bishop Sheen and “Leave It to Beaver”. Anyone who thinks that these fanatics would show any kindness to someone just because they consider a few of the same things to be immoral is soundly mistaken. They hate the Christian west no matter how truly Christian it actually is. Besides that, however, is the fact that what they hate about the west is more often based on the power and influence held by western nations and has nothing to do with religion or morality at all. Otherwise, how would one explain their cozy relationship with Communist China, an officially atheist, anti-religious regime that persecutes Christians, Buddhists and Muslims and carries out such things as forced abortions and sterilizations? Any tradition-minded person in the west who thinks they can make common cause with the Iranian regime is sorely mistaken.

Finally, we have the actions of the Iranian regime on the pan-monarchist front. It violently opposes and is opposed by virtually every monarchy in the region. In the past, the Emirates of Kuwait, Qatar and the Sultanate of Oman found it necessary to be at least somewhat friendly with Iran for the sake of their own safety. In the case of Kuwait they also shared a common threat from the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (which also reveals how Iran is not being principled in its choice of friends and enemies for it simultaneously supports the Baathist regime in Syria).  Iran has said openly that there is ‘no room’ for monarchies in Islam as they pose a fundamental ideological threat to the power of the Iranian clerics who must justify their own position based on usurping authority from a monarch. Iran is staunchly opposed to and is opposed by the Kingdom of Jordan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with the Gulf monarchies aligning with Saudi Arabia as that kingdom has been more helpful to them recently. This is a far cry from the Imperial State of Iran when there were friendly relations between the Shah and the Saudi King as there were between Iran and the other monarchies of the region and even family ties with the late Kingdom of Egypt.

Other monarchists made the mistake of thinking they could make common cause with Iran and were shown how wrong they were. For instance, in the wake of the Islamic Revolution, King Khalid of Saudi Arabia sent a friendly message to Iran calling for Islamic solidarity. He was met only with anti-monarchy bigotry with the Ayatollah responding by saying that Mecca was under the control of “heretics”. Needless to say, relations between the two countries have never been friendly. In several other countries, monarchist and republican alike, Iran has worked consistently to support subversive elements and oppose any with monarchist sympathies. Those who would sympathize with the Iranian regime as some sort of traditional fortress set against the “evils” of modernity might also remember that the former President of Iran took the exact opposite point of view and boasted of how much more progressive, democratic and liberal his country was when compared to a country like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As recently as Friday, January 24, 2014 an article appeared in Britain’s “The Telegraph” proposing that the west should reach out to the Islamic Republic of Iran because it is “now” a more liberal and democratic country than Saudi Arabia.

I hope I have made the case crystal clear. The Islamic Republic of Iran is an illegitimate regime of political and religious traitors and usurpers, it is an enemy to both the traditional systems of the west and of the Islamic Middle East as well as Iran itself. They are a treasonous, illegitimate regime supported by treasonous regimes and supporting treasonous, revolutionary forces far beyond their borders. There should be no justification for anyone who supports monarchy or traditional authority having any support or sympathy for the current Iranian regime whatsoever and the idea that any, no matter how small their numbers might be, actually do makes me a very … Mad Monarchist.

Dealing with Iran

As most who follow the news are probably aware, an agreement has just been reached between a number of countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran by which the international sanctions on Iran will be partially lifted in exchange for the Iranian government stopping the enrichment of uranium beyond a certain level so as to avoid them gaining nuclear weapons. It will probably surprise few that, from what I have heard, it does not sound like a “good deal” to me. In all fairness though, I must say that there are few possibilities I could imagine in which I would favor any sort of a deal with the current Iranian regime. I do not want it to become “acceptable” to the rest of the world, I do not want it to become “one of the club” as I detest it to its very core. Such is the case, not only because it calls America “the Great Satan” or has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” but because it is a barbaric and illegitimate regime that would certainly have killed the last Shah of Iran if they ever could have gotten their uncivilized hands on him. Even if they had not become one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world, that alone would have been enough to make them a permanent pariah in my book. And I do not say that simply as the knee-jerk reaction of a monarchist but because I believe the Shah was a basically good man who had the best interests of his country at heart, who was trying to do the right thing and who was making the lives of his people better and glorifying his country. I think the villainous portrayal of the late Shah is one of the most gross miscarriages of justice that has occurred in my lifetime.

Yet, there is something that disturbs me even more than this agreement, at least in a way. Because I expect very little from the self-serving governments of America, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The crimes of Iran, for example, could not hold a candle to the monstrous misdeeds of the communist regime in China. Rather, it is the number of seemingly sensible tradition-minded people, some of whom even claim to be monarchists, who seem to support Iran. Some of them even openly so. The very idea astounds me but most seem to argue that they think much of what the Iranian mullahs do is a pretty good idea. They like the idea of stoning adulterers, hanging homosexuals and are not very impressed with Iran under the Shah being a country with mini-skirts and Hollywood movies. Of course, they might think differently if it was their own wife, sister or daughter who was stoned to death for being raped or perhaps turning down an advance from a man who decided to use the law to take his revenge. However, even if this position was a valid one, it would still make no sense. The radicals ruling in Iran today, let their be no mistake, are not just enemies of the warped, licentious society that western civilization has become. Do not be fooled, they are the enemies of western civilization as it has always been no matter how far back one wishes to go.

It is undeniable that there is much about modern western society that is disgusting and despicable, but the sort of fanatics in power in Iran did not just start hating the west since the ‘swinging sixties’. These are people who would have called the height of the Renaissance a den of depravity (all that drinking and art with unclothed women), who would find the Middle Ages morally deplorable (after all, there was dancing going on -with men and women actually touching each other!) and who were already screaming death to the “Great Satan” when Beaver Cleaver was on TV and Lucie and Ricky (a real life married couple) were still sleeping in separate beds and the word “pregnant” was considered too graphic for audiences. Anyone who thinks that devout Christians of the west could ever make common cause with the brand of religious zealotry practiced by the rulers of modern Iran is very much mistaken. If anything, they would oppose the restoration of a more traditional Christendom if for no other reason than that it would be a much stronger enemy to overcome. One can see this quite clearly in the sort of people they choose to do business with today.

After all, do not think it is any accident that Iran has decided to negotiate with the west (and Russia and China but they are on the Iranian side already) at a time when you have an open socialist in Paris, a socialist in denial in Washington and a very much pretended “conservative” in London. Even the lukewarm, mainstream “right” in America would never have dreamed of coming to such an agreement with Iran. Does anyone think George W. Bush would have done such a thing? The elder Bush would not have, going so far as to befriend Saddam Hussein in order to oppose the regime in Iran and before him was Ronald Reagan who spoke out publicly in defense of the Shah and his rule of Iran, criticizing President Carter for his shameful betrayal of a man who had been a reliable ally of the western world. Even proper, faithful Muslims (admittedly most of whom are not of the Shia sect that populates Iran) should be aghast that the Iranian regime relies on support from a country like mainland China where Muslims in Xinjiang are brutally oppressed and which is officially atheist. In that same vein, of course, is the fact that the Islamic Middle East as about as worried as anyone else can be about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Suppose, for example, the mullahs in Iran made good on their threats to strike Israel. It is a tiny country that could not be attacked without simultaneously taking the lives of a great many Muslims in the Palestinian territories and surrounding areas. In spite of all their grand talk, the religious leaders in Iran are concerned with nothing beyond themselves and their own hold on power. The Islamic community over all means nothing to them, otherwise their best business partners would not be countries like Russia, China and India.

One thing that can be said about all of those places is that they at least have self-interest to explain their actions. With the possible exception of Russia which, it seems, wants Iranian access for oil but which always seemed a bit absurd to me since Russia has such huge oil reserves of its own. However, countries like India and China need oil and just as much they need cheap oil and Iran is a place to get it. For Christians in the west, however, there is not even self-interest to be served by siding with or sympathizing with Iran, only self-destruction. Does anyone honestly think that if these radicals in Tehran had their way, they would only massacre the immoral secularists while leaving the devout Christians alone? Do not be absurd. The same rule could be applied to modern-day Islamic terrorists all across the board. Were they selective in any attacks based on the immoral culture of the west? Did they bomb the brothels of Amsterdam or porn studios in Berlin? No, they bombed passenger trains in London and Madrid to kill as many people as possible. Did they fly planes into the smut-producers of Hollywood or the “Sin City” of Las Vegas in America? No, they targeted the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Capital to try to cripple the country as a whole (and spent their last night alive in nudie bars watching infidel women take their clothes off -the stuff “martyrs” are made of). They have bombed Christian churches in Africa and would likely do the same in Europe were not for the fact that they are mostly empty.

For a Christian to support the Islamic Republic of Iran because they are anti-modern western degenerate culture would be like having sympathy for the Devil because he believes in God. The regime in Iran does not oppose degenerate western culture, it opposes western culture -period. It is not terribly fond of most of Islamic culture for that matter and certainly has no love for the long, pre-Islamic history of Iran. In fact, one of the things they detested about the late Shah was that, during his reign, there was a little bit of a renaissance of classical Persian culture which they utterly opposed. It is a contemptible regime, an illegitimate regime and I want no rapprochement with it, I do not want it to become an “acceptable” member of the community of nations. What would please me would be to see the Islamic Republic torn down by the Iranian people and to see the monarchy restored under Crown Prince Reza or, if he is unacceptable, I would be pleased as well to see Prince Mohammad Hassan shipped over from Texas to be the new Shah. Perhaps if the people have been too enflamed against the Pahlavi dynasty, a return to the Qajar dynasty under Mohammad Hassan would be the ideal solution. That is my goal, the restoration of the Persian Empire and I would think it would be the goal of anyone calling themselves a traditionalist as well.

Monarch Profile: Shah Reza I of Iran

The penultimate Iranian monarch, Reza Shah Pahlavi, was born Reza Khan on March 15, 1878 in the village of Alasht in northern Iran (known internationally as Persia at the time). His father, Abbas Ali Khan, was an officer in the Persian army and served in the 1856 war against British India and Afghanistan. Later the same year his father died and his mother, Noushafarin Ayromlou, moved in with her brother in Tehran, eventually remarrying and leaving Reza with his uncle who, in turn, left him to be raised by another army officer. Given how he spent his formative years it is not surprising that the military emerged as his early calling in life. At only sixteen he joined the Persian Cossack Brigade, an elite unit in the latter days of the Qajar dynasty that had ruled Persia since 1785. Most members of this unit, one of the few reliable forces for the Qajar dynasty, were obviously not Iranian but young Reza proved himself an extremely capable soldier and served from the ranks on up there and in other regular units of the Persian army. Eventually his talent earned him a commission and he eventually rose to be the one and only Iranian commander of the Persian Cossack Brigade, attaining the rank of brigadier general.

Persia had deteriorated considerably in recent years and Reza Khan was as disturbed by this as any proud officer could be. During World War I British and Russian forces clashed with the Ottoman Turks inside the Persian borders and eventually the British occupied Persia as part of their intervention in the Russian Civil War. When that cause was abandoned the newly formed Soviet Union invaded from the north, establishing their own communist puppet-state in the region. The government broke down and eventually the authority of the state under the nominal leadership of the last Qajar emperor Ahmad Shah. Political parties feuded with each other, religious strife was rampant and most of the country was under the control or influence of either the British or Soviet forces. The Soviets controlled much of the rural areas while the British, through financial loans, held control over the nominal government. When a Soviet-controlled army prepared to march on Tehran, General Reza Khan decided to take action and marched on the capitol himself with his Persian Cossack Brigade. Reports suggest that the British helped to arm the general, viewing the Qajar government as impossibly weak and this new military commander as the most effective hope for stopping a communist takeover and restoring stability (allowing the British to withdraw without risking confrontation).

So it was that in 1921 Reza Shah Pahlavi launched the military coup that brought down the existing government. As the strongest leader in the country, he took control and swept out through the countryside eliminating opposition groups and the Soviet-backed invaders. Once peace and quiet had been restored he returned to Tehran where Ahmad Shah made him prime minister and then promptly left the country for an extended vacation in Europe in 1923. By 1925 the governing assembly declared Ahmad Shah deposed, the Qajar dynasty ended and proclaimed Reza Pahlavi the new Shahanshah (“King of kings” or ‘Emperor’) of Persia. Long married by this time to Nimtaj Ayromlou, later known as Tadj ol-Molouk of Iran, she was made queen consort and the eldest son of his many children, Mohammad Reza Shah, was named crown prince and heir to the throne. It was a new dynasty for what was to be a new Persia and one that was meant to represent a new national agenda and period of rebirth and rejuvenation for the once might empire.

This meant that the new Shah embarked on an ambitious modernization campaign, building highways, railroads, factories and schools such as the University of Tehran. The Shah looked at the western countries that had dominated Persia and wanted to emulate their technological progress while pushing out western political influence. This also meant there would be some difficulties with religious leaders, however, such moves as adopting western clothes, showing greater tolerance to religious minorities and granting more rights to women were not done simply to offend religious sensibilities. The new Shah had seen firsthand how Persia had been weakened by internal divisions that allowed them to fall prey to foreign aggression. He wanted a population totally united in its loyalty rather than one which would follow any local cleric with his own agenda. Officially, the country remained a constitutional monarchy (as it had been established under the Qajar dynasty) and elections were still held but they increasingly became more a formality as the Shah concentrated more power in his own hands. He and he alone would guide the destiny of the country at the end of the day. Along with this new direction also came a new name for the country, at least as far as the outside world was concerned. In 1935 the Shah informed the League of Nations that Persia should henceforth be known as Iran (as had actually long been known within the country) which roughly translates to “Land of the Aryans”. In abolishing the use of the name “Persia” the Shah was attempting to show that Iran would no longer allow foreign powers to define his country but would grow in strength to be their equal.

Of course, to modern ears (especially in the west), whenever one hears the word “Aryan” and talk about the 1930’s someone is going to bring up Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. There has been a great deal of misinformation put out regarding the relationship between Nazi Germany and the first Pahlavi Shah of Iran. Much of this comes from later efforts to justify Allied aggression against Iran. However, the truth is that there were no close ties between Iran and Germany. During the reign of Shah Reza the amount of investment by Germany in Iran did increase quite a bit but this was due simply to the fact that Iran felt safer dealing with Germany as opposed to other European countries because Germany was not a colonial power and could be trusted not to have designs on the country such as Britain and Russia had displayed in the past. There is also nothing sinister about the use of the term “Aryan” and it only goes to show how odd it was for Hitler to describe blue-eyed blondes in northern Europe using the name of an actual historic people from the northern India, central Asia region. Iran was nothing like Nazi Germany, was not racist or anti-Semitic. In fact, one of the reasons certain religious fanatics in Iran opposed the new Shah was because he did not persecute the Jewish population and granted greater equality to religious minorities than had ever existed before. In fact, over a thousand European Jews were saved from the Holocaust by being granted Iranian citizenship during World War II.

If the Shah was guilty of repression it was only by repressing the forces of repression themselves. His most determined foes were the religious fundamentalists who opposed such things as the Shah allowing men and women to appear in public together, allowing women to be educated and uncover their faces. “Monstrous” things like that. There were also those influenced by communism, mostly spread from the Soviet Union next door and which was infiltrating the higher education system, most of which only existed thanks to the Shah. That’s gratitude for you. He also came to have staunch enemies outside the country in both the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom which had earlier supported him. Each tried to increase their influence in Iran and finally the Shah cut ties with both of them, which was part of the reason why trade with Germany increased so much. However, so long as Britain and the USSR both wanted to dominate Iran, they tended to cancel each other out. The British had supported the Shah coming to power in the first place as a way to stop the Soviets from dominating the country. However, that all changed in 1941 when the Axis countries in Europe invaded the Soviet Union. The British Empire and the USSR, once inveterate enemies, suddenly became wartime allies and the Shah was effectively doomed from that moment on.

As soon as World War II broke out the Shah had declared Iranian neutrality, wishing to focus on the continued modernization of his own country and his hope of building a coalition of countries across the Middle East to support their own interests. Nonetheless, for the Allies, there was no such thing as neutrality really. If you were not with them you were considered to be on the side of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. After the UK and USSR joined forces a short ultimatum was sent to Iran ordering the Shah to expel all nationals from Axis countries or face immediate invasion. This was a flimsy excuse for aggression of course as there were Axis nationals in most every other neutral country in the world but they were not threatened with invasion. He refused and the British and Soviets launched a massive air, land and sea attack on Iran. As the tanks were rolling across the border, the Shah summoned the Soviet and British ambassadors and demanded to know why they had attacked his country without a declaration of war. He was told it was because of the presence of “German nationals” but when he asked if the Allies would withdraw if he turned out every German in the country the Shah was met only with silence. Apparently, as far as the Allies were concerned, attacking a country before declaring war only became outrageous later in the year…sometime around early December it seems.

The Iranians were taken by surprise and the modernization of the armed forces started by the Shah had not yet been completed. So, resistance was crushed fairly rapidly between the Soviets, who occupied the northern half of Iran, and the British who occupied the southern half of the country. Faced with a hopeless situation, after four days the Shah ordered his forces to cease resistance. The British advised him to abdicate the throne in favor of his son if he wished his regime and dynasty to survive so, on September 16, 1941 he did just that, handing over power to the young Shah Mohammad Reza, who would go on to be the last monarch to reign over Iran. For the Allies, the invasion worked out very well. Iranian roads and railroads were used to send supplies to the Soviet Union with Winston Churchill calling the country the “Bridge to Victory”. The British had originally thought to restore the Qajar dynasty to power (as they had a history of being friendly to British interests) but feared the Qajar heir would not be acceptable to Iranians as he could not even speak their language. So, the Pahlavi dynasty would go on while the British arrested the former Shah and took him into custody. The British moved him around a bit before settling him in South Africa where they announced that he died of heart problems on July 26, 1944 at the age of 66. His remains were taken to Egypt and buried before later being taken back to Iran for reburial. Shortly before the 1979 revolution his remains were moved back to Egypt. After the revolution the Ayatollahs ordered his mausoleum destroyed. He is currently buried in the Al Rifai Mosque in Cairo alongside his son and a number of members of the Egyptian Royal Family.

MM Video: Fawzia of Egypt

MM Video: The Last Empresses of Iran

Today in History

The Mad Monarchist remembers the birth, today in 1919, of His Imperial Majesty Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, last Shahanshah (King of Kings) and Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans) of Iran, the last legitimate ruler of that proud and ancient country. May we soon see the day when the rotten republic collapses and the legitimate monarchy is restored to the lands of ancient Persia.

MM Video: The Imperial Family of Iran

Reagan on the Shah of Iran

The Islamic Republic Claims Another Victim

Last night it was reported in a number of papers and the cable news outlets that HIH Prince Alireza of Iran, younger son of the late Shah, second in line to the late Peacock Throne, took his own life at his home in Boston. He was 44 years old. An official release from the heir to the throne, HIH Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, said:

“It is with immense grief that we would like to inform our compatriots of the passing away of Prince Alireza Pahlavi.
Like millions of young Iranians, he too was deeply disturbed by all the ills fallen upon his beloved homeland, as well as carrying the burden of losing a father and a sister in his young life.
Although he struggled for years to overcome his sorrow, he finally succumbed, and during the night of the 4th of January 2011, in his Boston residence, took his own life, plunging his family and friends into great sorrow.
Once again, we are joined with mothers, father and relatives of so many victims of these dark times for our country.”

The sister spoken of was the very lovely and soft-hearted Princess Leila of Iran who likewise took her own life in a hotel room in London in 2001 at the age of 31. Prince Alireza studied at Harvard Divinity School, ancient Persian studies, as well as studying at Columbia. His death is another tragedy for an Imperial Family far too familiar with tragedy, their own personal suffering being a mirror of the suffering Iran itself and all of its people have endured since the Islamic Revolution. And there is no doubt in my mind that the republican regime is as guilty for the death of Prince Alireza if the Ayatollah himself had pulled the trigger. What ordinary person today can begin to understand the trauma that the Pahlavi family has endured at the hands of this criminal collection of terrorist fanatics? Torn from their people, chased from their homeland, forced to live in exile, forced to endure the endless vilification of their beloved father the Shah, not only by the republican regime but by its sympathizers and apologists in the west as well.

H.M. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi died in Egypt in 1980, only one year after his overthrow by the revolution in 1979. That was a dark day for Iran and for the world at large, countries next door and on the other side of the world suffering as a result. The people have endured the most but there is no one family that has endured the unique suffering of the late Shah's family and the regime in power today is the author of all of their misfortunes. The Mad Monarchist sends heartfelt sympathy to the family and in particular to Her Majesty Empress Farah who has had the intense pain of out-living two of her own children. May they all come through this to now happiness again, reunited with their countrymen and may Prince Alireza rest in peace.

Did the Shah Predict Our Current Crisis?

Passing of the Shah

The Radical Royalist marks the passing of Iran's last great ruler before the fundamentalist "Islamic Republic" takeover. His Majesty Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, King of kings and Light of the Aryans, came to the throne in a time of great uncertainty but led his country to its peak of prestige, power and prosperity and done while keeping peaceful relations with the major powers of the world. His overthrow was a disaster of the first order and marked the first time that terrorists of the stripe we have come to know too well were able to take control of an entire country. Iranian society was never so free and open as when he was on the throne and if he could at times be harsh we can see only too clearly today exactly why the enemies he was dealing with were worthy of such treatment. May he rest in peace and may his memory be one day vindicated.

Free Iran!

Consort Profile: Princess Fawzia of Egypt

Although the first wife of the last Shah of Iran was to have a short stay in the world spotlight, she has never been forgotten. She was born Her Sultanic Highness Princess Fawzia bint Fuad at Ras el-Tin Palace in Alexandria, Egypt on November 5, 1921 to HM Sultan Fuad I of Egypt and the Sudan by his second wife Nazli Sabri. Among her varied royal bloodline was Suleiman Pasha, a French colonel under Napoleon who converted to Islam and updated the Egyptian army. Her nephew Fuad II who go on to be the last King of Egypt. Big changes were going on for the Egyptian Royal Family at this time. Her father dropped the title of Sultan in favor of King and enacted a new constitution to limit the power of parliament. Egypt wanted to make itself more known on the modern world stage and Princess Fawzia was expected to play a part in that through her marriage to the young heir to the throne of Persia.

HIH Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran came to Egypt the ask for the hand of the teenage Princess Fawzia and according to the princess they were both quite infatuated with each other. The proper arrangements were made and the couple were married on March 16, 1938 in Cairo. After their honeymoon the two had another wedding ceremony in Tehran. Not long after, in 1941, the Crown Prince succeeded his father as Shah of Iran with Princess Fawzia being elevated to “Queen of Iran”. She was an instant celebrity, not just in the Middle East but around the world as commentators raved about the Egyptian royal beauty who was now Queen consort of the Iranian Empire. Cecil Beaton of Life magazine called her an “Asian Venus”. However, idyllic as her life seemed, she had many problems.

Almost immediately things began to go wrong for the royal couple. Princess Ashraf, twin sister of the last Shah, and Fawzia took an immediate dislike to each other and tensions soon developed between the two families at large. Queen Fawzia reportedly felt neglected by her husband and found life in Tehran hard to adjust to and somewhat more stark and lonely than the court in Cairo. Not long after the birth of Princess Shahnaz Pahlavi the Queen’s brother, King Farouk I of Egypt, prevailed upon Fawzia to get a divorce. This was granted, in Egypt, in 1945 but was not recognized in Iran until 1948 although both countries insisted that their good relations remained intact. Now Princess Fawzia of Egypt and the Sudan again, the harshest condition was being separated from her daughter who, as a condition of the divorce, had to remain in Iran and had no contact with her mother until she turned 18. The Egyptians blamed the Iranian climate on the divorce while Iran said it was the inability of Fawzia to give the Shah a male heir. In reality however, it seems to have been simply, what we would call today, irreconcilable differences.

A year later, in 1949 in Cairo, Princess Fawzia married Colonel Ismail Hussain Shirin and in the following years had two children by him; a daughter and a son. With the fall of the monarchy in Egypt many in the family moved to Switzerland, however, Princess Fawzia remains the senior member of the Egyptian Royal Family. Although the head of the family still lives in exile in Switzerland the Princess lives in Egypt.

MM Video: Qajar and Pahlavi Shahs of Iran

Sad News out of Iran

The treasonous Islamic Republic of Iran has put two monarchists to death. Get the details and full story from the Radical Royalist.

MM Video: Iran - The Time is Now

Ex-President Carter has "No Regrets"

Proving that there is no fool like an old fool former Democrat President Jimmy Carter has recently stated that he has "no regrets" about his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, which he blindly considers the only real downside to his four years in office. I guess he is overlooking such trivial things as the fuel crisis, the economic recession and the "malaise" as it was termed, but that might not be surprising considering that the former peanut farmer went on television and basically blamed all problems on the American people. And he wasn't reelected -what a surprise! The truth is that if Jimmy Carter had any sense in that peanut-sized brain of his, he would have a great many regrets, not only for doing almost nothing to secure the release of the hostages but for allowing the situation in Iran to deteriorate to such a point that the Ayatollah and his gang of terrorists were able to take power in the first place.

Few other presidencies in recent American history have been such monumental examples of stupidity as that of Jimmy Carter and the way he handled or rather mis-handled Iran tops the list. It was Carter who appointed George Ball to the Trilateral Commission in 1978 who did all he could to suppress support for the Shah and the Iranian monarchy. His head of the National Security Council also supported a halt to all support going to the Shah and worked with elements in the CIA to shift support to the Ayatollah who was preparing his bid to take power. Carter then did nothing as revolution erupted and brought down the ancient Iranian monarchy, allowing for the first time in modern history for terrorists to take control of an entire nation which they then used as their base to support their compatriots abroad. Even when it came to providing basic humanitarian medical treatment for the ailing exiled Shah President Carter had to be cajoled and brow-beaten into allowing the monarch to be taken to the Mayo Clinic for treatment.

The man who was to succeed Carter as President, Republican Party leader Ronald Reagan, said later that “I did criticize the President because of his undermining of our stalwart ally, the Shah, I do not believe that he was that far out of line with his people.” There would have been no hostage crisis to bungle if Carter had supported the Shah rather than undermining and abandoning him. There would have been no terrorist takeover, no Iranian support for terrorists in the near east and no nuclear arms crisis such as we are now facing if President Carter had not completely sold out the monarchy of the Shah who was a man of peace, a friend and ally to the west and a man who recognized the State of Israel and worked for peace in the Middle East. President Carter, you have plenty that you should regret and plenty for which you will ultimately have to answer for.

Fourth Monarchist Victim in Iran

The Radical Royalist in Australia reports on the fourth Iranian monarchist to be sentanced to death in the recent crackdown. This is very important, monarchists everywhere should be outraged by this and all pan-monarchists should respond and make their feelings known! Check the article for a link to sign the petition for the release of Iranian political prisoners, many monarchists being among them.

Monarch Profile: Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

H.I.M. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi has the unhappy distinction of being the last royal ruler of Iran, the last in an ancient line of great Persian monarchs before the rise of the current Islamic Republic. Born in 1919 he grew up in the tumultuous world of Iranian politics. In 1925 his father overthrew the last Shah of Qajar dynasty and made himself Emperor with Mohammad proclaimed as "Crown Prince of Persia" (his father would later request all nations refer to the country as Iran). He studied in Switzerland before returning home to begin his military training. Within a few years he was thrust on to the world stage when British and Soviet forces invaded Iran and deposed his father in order to secure supply lines through the country and stop Iranian trade with Germany. On September 26, 1941 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was formally declared "King of Kings, Light of the Aryans and Supreme Warlord". His reign would be one of great social and technical progress for Iran but also one of great trouble and unrest.

Early on the Shah had growing problems with the Shiite clerics who objected to his modernization efforts and the incease in social freedoms; especially for women. An alliance began to emerge between these fundamentalists and the nationalists who opposed the Shah's friendship with the West and his recognition of the State of Israel. They also resented Western meddling in Iran which was happening. The Soviets were supporting the communists in Iran but the US and UK took a more active role in bringing down the Prime Minister who nationalized Iran's oil reserves in 1951. The PM, Mohammad Mossadegh, had believed that the West was supportive of his nationalist movement but the CIA and SIS funded a coup against him. When it failed the Shah was forced to leave the country for Rome. Later he was able to return, remove Mossadegh and restore himself. The communist elements in the country had supported Mossadegh and attempted a coup which forced the Shah to leave the country again though the effort failed and the Reds turned against the former PM. Their success in street violence frightened the Islamic leadership into switching back to the Shah's camp. The Shah also survived several assassination attempts, some of which originated in the Soviet Union.

One of the best things about the late Shah was that he was a monarchists' monarch. He supported the royalists against the republicans in the civil war in Yemen, helped the Sultan of Qaboos stop communist rebels in his country, maintained good relations with the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and the Gulf emirates while fighting the socialist and Baath party republican regimes in Iraq. However, radical elements still plotted against him because of the social progress he pushed and his continued good relations with the US and United Kingdom. During his reign education was massively expanded, healthcare was expanded, women were given the right to an education and the right to vote and the national economy improved greatly. This brought new outside trends to Iran like modern fashion, Hollywood movies and dance clubs all of which the radical clerics vehemently opposed. It had taken some time but the Shah's rule seemed secure, the regime stable and Iran was quickly becoming a modern, prosperous and well educated country. It was then quite a surprise when demonstrations flared up against the monarchy in 1977 orchestrated by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The US government under President Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah not to take action against the radical elements, promising support but never delivering on it and indeed denying the Shah vital material assistance. By 1978 strikes were gripping the country and the Prime Minister prevailed upon the Shah to leave Iran for a short time until things stabilized. After he left his security forces were dissolved and the Ayatollah organized his own government, refused to deal with the Prime Minister and announced the Islamic Revolution. On February 11, 1979 the ancient Iranian monarchy formally came to an end and the Shah would never see his homeland again. The Shah spent the rest of his life in exile, living in various countries around the world as the revolutionary regime continued to demand his return and that of his family to face execution. His health grew worse and though he lived to see many of the governments who had failed to support him regret their previous policies he always insisted that it gave him no satisfaction. He only wished things could have been different. He died in Egypt in 1980.

The Problems in Iran

Everyone is talking about Iran right now and a few precious souls are predicting that the power of the Ayatollah might be shaken and regime change could be on the way to the Islamic Republic. Hope springs eternal I guess. The problem, as I see it, is that not only are there relatively few major differences between the two feuding claimants to the presidency; that presidency holds only nominal power anyway and I don't see the "change" crowd advocating the right kind of change. Where are the brave soulds standing up to defend the monarchy of the late Shah? They are out there of course but are given virtually zero face time by the mainstream media. Everyone is talking about the smell of revolution being in the air but what should be talked about is how all of this proves what a disastrous mistake the Islamic revolution was and illustrates the need for a good ol'fashioned counterrevolution.

The son of the late Shah has long been working for "regime change" in Iran though unfortunately he has stopped short of advocating restoration of the monarchy. He has been beating the democracy drum for a while and when pressed on the issue of the monarchy inevitably claims humbly that he would be willing to serve in whatever capacity the Iranian people choose for him once they have a true democracy in Iran. I have the utmost respect for the Crown Prince and at this point almost any change in Iran would bound to be an improvement. However, my fear is that, even if democracy takes root, it will not lead to the restoration of the monarchy and we will see the Islamic revolution portrayed in official histories in the same way that the French Revolution is today.

Consider how often you have read or heard about the French Revolution and the horrific bloodbath that followed. Almost without exception the liberal elites will half-heartedly confess that the Reign of Terror was "unfortunate" but that it was a necessary evil to destroy the monarchy of the ancien regime that is, to them, the ultimate bogey man. My fear for Iran is that, if there is regime change and by some wildly implausible series of events Iran becomes an actual democracy their own revolution will be glossed over in this way as well. Liberal elites will shrug off the horrors and crimes of the theocratic republicans and say that the Islamic Revolution was a sad but essential step in getting rid of the autocratic monarchy to continue down the path to a secular, democratic republic. If anything the people should look at Iran, wake up, and realize that republicanism is not a guarantee of prosperity and democracy is a fickle and fragile thing that can be easily manipulated, suppressed or steered in a chosen direction. All that has happened in Iran in the last few decades should prove that republicanism is a failure and that the Shah had been right all along. His son should be restored asap with the mullah's sincerest apologies. Sounds unreasonable I know, but I am...The Mad Monarchist.