The Chances of Restoration of Monarchy in Iran

[Frozen Royalist]

Well, does anybody have an idea or a plan to help speed up the process or do we just sit back and keep doing what we did since 1979, wait for the Islamic Republic to crumble. I know patience is a virtue and all but waiting isn't exactly fun plus it doesn't help that we are dealing with a crazy theocracy here, I mean how do you counter that for a restoration? I suppose we could pressure the government but that could result in rather hefty retaliation from our good friend the Russian Federation, not being to do anything makes me want to do this:

But seriously does anybody have a worthwhile idea here?

-Frozen Royalist

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Nico

And Bonaparte was a general, the first Grimaldi a monk and Zog of Albania the President of his own country...
Farah had to fight all her life against condescending attitude like yours. As pointed out, "petty" and "ignorant" seem quite fitting to sumarize your comments.
Just keep them rolling, at least it's entertaining (and don't forget to bow deep to your usual "coterie", i know you like French words).

Oh I am fine with it. If the Iranians want a roll-back to the CIA-backed arch-corrupt and nepotist puppets on that "Peacock Throne": good luck. We all know it will never happen. Russia and China will never let slip their influence in the Persian Gulf, since our American friends are so friendly with the head-chopping, women-stoning, slave-holding and gay-hanging "allies" in Saudi-Arabia. Holding Iran means the whole Persian Gulf, the aorta of world economy, is in Western influence.

Forget any snippet of a chance on a restoration of that Pahlavi vaudeville. Reason: geopolitics and reality. It will never happen. Putin will repeat the scorched earth policy he used in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria when the West again tries to expand their influence at the cost of Russia.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

Well, does anybody have an idea or a plan to help speed up the process or do we just sit back and keep doing what we did since 1979, wait for the Islamic Republic to crumble. I know patience is a virtue and all but waiting isn't exactly fun plus it doesn't help that we are dealing with a crazy theocracy here, I mean how do you counter that for a restoration? I suppose we could pressure the government but that could result in rather hefty retaliation from our good friend the Russian Federation, not being to do anything makes me want to do this:

But seriously does anybody have a worthwhile idea here?

-Frozen Royalist

Always a bad idea to mess with other country's culture or politics, because there's usually lot's of details you only understand when you live in it.
Aside from that, i'm not convinced a monarchy is better by default...

[Katrianna]

We're supposed to come up with ideas to restore the monarchy? I don't think so. This is a problem limited to the Iranian Islamic Govt. and the people, other nations, particularly the US have no business stepping in unless US support is requested, as if that will happen. This is a confrontation between the hard liners and the reformer clerics. Russia and China have a huge interest in Iran for the access to the Persian Gulf and there's no way they will allow a US military presence in. The last time the US tried to intervene in the Middle East was Iraq when we invaded the country based on blatant lies and in the end resulted in a civil war which has subsided for now, but could start up at any time. It also gave birth to ISIS which was founded by ex-military leader that were loyal Baathists and loyal to Hussein. Look what happened there. Iraq, Syria, Libya and the rest of the Middle Eastern countries remain under there threat. All from the US invasion.
Many of the protests are against the Iranian Govt.'s involvement in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, they want the money spent on having troops fighting in those theaters to be spent at home on the people instead. I can understand that. I should say one of the points of protest by the public.
An Iranian professor was interviewed this weekend on the BBC Overnight broadcast on US NPR and he stated there's no chance for any regime change and if it would happen, it wouldn't be for at least 5 to 10 yr. He stated as long as the Revolutionary Guard and the military are entrenched with the clerics nothing will happen and they are still fiercely loyal to the clerics.
There's nothing wrong with being interested in Monarchies as we all are here and talking the "what ifs", but there has to be a realist understanding that monarchies aren't the answer to all the world's problems. The West supported the Shah until 1979, when he was ill and dying with cancer, did any of the Western Allies grant he and his family exile? No. Some friends.

[Katrianna]

I also need to add, did the Shah's great friend and ally in particular, the US put out the welcome mat to grant exile/asylum to the Royal Family. That's especially NO.

[Duc_et_Pair]

That last is true. The Pahlavis suddenly became the disease anyone tried to avoid. The world is a cynical place. During their reign the Pahlavis were met with all égards. But it was all just superficiality and pure calculation.

The documentary Decadence and Downfall: The Shah of Iran's Ultimate Party about Persepolis also changed my look on the monarchy. It is clear states (and monarchs) have no friends. Only interests. Look at them, sitting there, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Anne in their palace-like tents at Persepolis. Look at them, in their most glittering diamonds: the Danish and the Belgians. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands playing old chum and old pal with Mohammed Reza. See Don Juan Carlos and Doña Sofía popping their eyes out. In the documentary it became clear the royals did not take it all very au sérieux and it was mainly the sweltering heat in that artical oasis in the desert which sticked in their memories.

When Mohammed Reza was desposed, he travelled from country to country seeking for asylum. Where once the doors of the White House, the Élysée or Europe´s royal palaces swept wide open for him, everything remained firmly shut.

[wyevale]

'Fair weather' friends indeed...

[wyevale]

January 8, 1936 Reza Shah Pahlavi removes compulsory hijab ����(Islamic headscarf) for the women of Iran in a push to further modernize the country.
Ironically, today, 82 years later, following more than a week of protests and unrest, the mullahs announced English classes would be banned in schools, attempting to isolate the Iranian people from the Western world and accusing the U.S. of inciting this most recent movement.
But what are the people saying? Though the majority of those on the streets were born after the Revolution, they want better. They want change. It’s fascinating to watch these young people nostalgic for a pre-Islamic, pro-Iranian Iran.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by wyevale

January 8, 1936 Reza Shah Pahlavi removes compulsory hijab ����(Islamic headscarf) for the women of Iran in a push to further modernize the country.
Ironically, today, 82 years later, following more than a week of protests and unrest, the mullahs announced English classes would be banned in schools, attempting to isolate the Iranian people from the Western world and accusing the U.S. of inciting this most recent movement.
But what are the people saying? Though the majority of those on the streets were born after the Revolution, they want better. They want change. It’s fascinating to watch these young people nostalgic for a pre-Islamic, pro-Iranian Iran.

Pre-Islamic Iran? They want seven centuries back?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

Well, does anybody have an idea or a plan to help speed up the process or do we just sit back and keep doing what we did since 1979, wait for the Islamic Republic to crumble. I know patience is a virtue and all but waiting isn't exactly fun plus it doesn't help that we are dealing with a crazy theocracy here, I mean how do you counter that for a restoration? I suppose we could pressure the government but that could result in rather hefty retaliation from our good friend the Russian Federation, not being to do anything makes me want to do this:

But seriously does anybody have a worthwhile idea here?

-Frozen Royalist

Why do you want to change it? Its usually disastrous interfering in differnet countires, even if they are tyrannical or not in tune iwht Western liberal democratic ideals. Intervention in the Middle East may be justifiable in some ways but it rarely wroks out very well in practice.

[wyevale]

They want seven centuries back?

They want pre-'theocratic absolutism' by the Mullahs back..A state where Hijabs are optional, where one can be highly religious if one wants to be, but where it is not rigidly imposed and ruthlessly enforced...

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That last is true. The Pahlavis suddenly became the disease anyone tried to avoid. The world is a cynical place. During their reign the Pahlavis were met with all égards. But it was all just superficiality and pure calculation.

The documentary Decadence and Downfall: The Shah of Iran's Ultimate Party about Persepolis also changed my look on the monarchy. It is clear states (and monarchs) have no friends. Only interests. Look at them, sitting there, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Anne in their palace-like tents at Persepolis. Look at them, in their most glittering diamonds: the Danish and the Belgians. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands playing old chum and old pal with Mohammed Reza. See Don Juan Carlos and Doña Sofía popping their eyes out. In the documentary it became clear the royals did not take it all very au sérieux and it was mainly the sweltering heat in that artical oasis in the desert which sticked in their memories.

When Mohammed Reza was desposed, he travelled from country to country seeking for asylum. Where once the doors of the White House, the Élysée or Europe´s royal palaces swept wide open for him, everything remained firmly shut.

Instead of this rather bad and biased documentary, may i suggest you to take a look at the book "the fall of Heaven, the Pahlavis and the finals days of imperial Iran", you'll learn a thing or two : for instance that Farah herself was appalled by the Persepolis celebrations, made without the Iranian people. You'll see that the Pahlavis were taken very seriously by the other royals as well : in 1979 they received personnal support from the Belgians, the Dutch, the Greeks... Hassan II offered them a place to live and Rainier wanted to welcome all the family in Monaco.
The proof of this lifelong respect ? Farah is still invited to the various royal celebrations around the globe. Do you see such deference for the Bokassas for exemple ? Hell no !
Imperial Iran and the Pahlavis is a complicated case. But it would be way too easy to sweep them under the carpet. What a simplistic vision of History !

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Nico

Instead of this rather bad and biased documentary, may i suggest you to take a look at the book "the fall of Heaven, the Pahlavis and the finals days of imperial Iran", you'll learn a thing or two : for instance that Farah herself was appalled by the Persepolis celebrations, made without the Iranian people. You'll see that the Pahlavis were taken very seriously by the other royals as well : in 1979 they received personnal support from the Belgians, the Dutch, the Greeks... Hassan II offered them a place to live and Rainier wanted to welcome all the family in Monaco.
The proof of this lifelong respect ? Farah is still invited to the various royal celebrations around the globe. Do you see such deference for the Bokassas for exemple ? Hell no !
Imperial Iran and the Pahlavis is a complicated case. But it would be way too easy to sweep them under the carpet. What a simplistic vision of History !

There is a book. Written by an author. And there are programs in which you see Farah herself, in her own person, with her own mouth, forming vowels and consonants by her own lips, teeth and tongue, simply denying what went wrong, denying there was excess, denying Mohammed Reza was an authoritarian and relentlessly philandering husband.

Farah even criticized all who complained about political oppression in Iran under her husband. In her mind, such attacks on Mohammed Reza were "quite unjustified" and did not take into consideration the "legitimate reasons" behind what she called "his firmness".

I saw a lady whom placed the responsibility for the revolution outside the palaces. She blamed the Iranians who "failed to appreciate all her husband did for them", she blamed the Western powers who failed to support Mohammed Reza and she blamed the media for being "partial" and wrongly accusing her husband of human rights abuses.

In your post you see palace doors swinging open for the exiled Pahlavis. I see they were homeless pariahs, hunted by Islamic gunmen, haunted by hungry lawyers, shunned by "friends", betrayed by allies and skimmed by profiteers and parasites.

But everyone has the right on his/her own view. You have your view on the Pahlavis. I have mine. That Farah sometimes still is invited possibly is just humanity. After all she once was (or still is) seen a sort of "colleague" to them, the double-faced specimen called "royals".

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

There is a book. Written by an author. And there are programs in which you see Farah herself, in her own person, with her own mouth, forming vowels and consonants by her own lips, teeth and tongue, simply denying what went wrong, denying there was excess, denying Mohammed Reza was an authoritarian and relentlessly philandering husband.

Farah even criticized all who complained about political oppression in Iran under her husband. In her mind, such attacks on Mohammed Reza were "quite unjustified" and did not take into consideration the "legitimate reasons" behind what she called "his firmness".

I saw a lady whom placed the responsibility for the revolution outside the palaces. She blamed the Iranians who "failed to appreciate all her husband did for them", she blamed the Western powers who failed to support Mohammed Reza and she blamed the media for being "partial" and wrongly accusing her husband of human rights abuses.

In your post you see palace doors swinging open for the exiled Pahlavis. I see they were homeless pariahs, hunted by Islamic gunmen, haunted by hungry lawyers, shunned by "friends", betrayed by allies and skimmed by profiteers and parasites.

But everyone has the right on his/her own view. You have your view on the Pahlavis. I have mine. That Farah sometimes still is invited possibly is just humanity. After all she once was (or still is) seen a sort of "colleague" to them, the double-faced specimen called "royals".

It's a thing to have a view and to be able to express it. It's another to be frankly offensive and injurious toward someone.
Everyone can appreciate your elegance with the "That Farah".
Merci Monsieur !

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

There is a book. Written by an author. And there are programs in which you see Farah herself, in her own person, with her own mouth, forming vowels and consonants by her own lips, teeth and tongue, simply denying what went wrong, denying there was excess, denying Mohammed Reza was an authoritarian and relentlessly philandering husband.

Farah even criticized all who complained about political oppression in Iran under her husband. In her mind, such attacks on Mohammed Reza were "quite unjustified" and did not take into consideration the "legitimate reasons" behind what she called "his firmness".

I saw a lady whom placed the responsibility for the revolution outside the palaces. She blamed the Iranians who "failed to appreciate all her husband did for them", she blamed the Western powers who failed to support Mohammed Reza and she blamed the media for being "partial" and wrongly accusing her husband of human rights abuses.

Despite your series of nasty attacks on Farah, I think it’s quite obvious from your posts that you haven’t actually read Her Majesty’s memoir...

[wyevale]

Certainly the Windsors regard any 'once crowned head' as 'still a crowned head' , even if they have been deposed ... the invitation extended to several deposed Monarch's during HMQs Diamond Jubilee is proof of this.Altho' the lady herself wasn't present [being a Consort rather than Monarch herself].
So Empress Farah remains HIM the Shahbanou of Iran...

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Despite your series of nasty attacks on Farah, I think it’s quite obvious from your posts that you haven’t actually read Her Majesty’s memoir...

Memoirs can be VERY selective as it describes a history from a person's point of view. Undoubtedly the memoirs of President Trump will describe his greatness.

Countering these memoirs are Farahs own words. In interviews. No there was no oppression, oh no. No there was no excess, what do you mean? Philandering, my late husband? Human rights trampled? No, way, he just acted "firm" and the rest is exaggerated by Western media. The august Mohammed Reza was good, was firm, was righteous.

I am okay with it. This is a free world. You see Farah as god knows what. I see her as an intrigante, a chameleon which uses the colour palette what fits best in the spin of the day. Opinions differ. Can happen.

Anyway, to get back on track: no the monarchy will nog be restored. Iranians are not that deluded to get that Pahlavi exploitation back.

[Gaudete]

You can’t just change the subject because your view was challenged. Your initial post said that her memoir painted the regime of her husband as perfect and completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Which is false. Had you actually read her memoir, you’d know that. You’d also know that her interviews often taken the same balanced tone as appeared in her memoir. How can you base criticism of Farah in your view of a book you haven’t actually read?

[Duc_et_Pair]

You are defending her with books. I criticize her by the very own words she uttered be her very own lips in various interviews in the 30 years since the Iranians overthrew Pahlavi's regime.

I don't rob you from your heroine. You have your favourable opinion on Farah. I have no favourable opinon on her. Soit. **** happens and life goes on.

[Gaudete]

No no, address the point I’m making.

You began by saying that part of the reason you didn’t like her was because her memoir presented a distorted view of Iranian history and that she denied there were any failings in her husband’s regime. You went on to say that her interviews were also based in this position.

However, you’ve now admitted that you’ve never read her memoir. I haven’t given an opinion on Her Majesty either way yet but as someone who has read her memoir and who has watched interviews she given, I can say that you’re actually misrepresenting fact.

You’re free to dislike her all you want, that’s not my issue. But don’t claim you dislike her because of things she’s said or written when you haven’t actually read anything she’s written or provided any example of an interview where she has contradicted what she wrote in that memoir.

You’re entitled to your view, however you get there. But don’t make up stories about a book you haven’t actually read. That’s pointless for all concerned.