[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Prince Reza Pahlavi: Despicable Ahmadinejad, Ignorant
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iranian Boy wrote:
"Let me be clear by pointing out that I am not asking for the US government to respond by either financing or arming the Iranian resistance." -RP

If I was RP and had free hands I would impose myself as monarch in Iran. I would create a transitional government and establish a very close contact with Pars TV, then go to Israel together with a delegation of Iranians and ask for secret financial support for the movement and the Pars TV.

This post will be emailed to Mr Kamran Beigi, press secretary of RP who will read it and laugh, but this is all about freedom of expresssion

That will never work, you can never "impose" yourself on anyone. That would be called "dictatorship". RP has to be watchful of who he is involved with, otherwise his enemies will say "he is installed by this and that". The same thing they used to say about his father; after Mossadeg was kicked out. Unfortunatley many Iranians, cannot distinguish between facts and fictions. He needs to convince the world to help the right opposition groups and Radio, T.V. programs, that would help to bring freedom to Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:21 pm    Post subject: Talking to Iran Reply with quote

Talking to Iran
Reza Pahlavi
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006


The prospect of Washington-Tehran dialogue is moving up the political agenda. But the United States must consider the moral and strategic price of such engagement, says the former crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi.

Public frustration with the stalemate in Iraq in the United States, reflected in the mid-term elections on 7 November, has now reshaped Congress, heralding a new era. The current strategy is being rethought and in anticipation, President Bush has commissioned two prominent Americans, James A Baker and Lee Hamilton, to lead the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to produce a fresh approach.

As an outsider I can only hope that these efforts prove salutary and productive. As an Iranian, however, I am concerned with the possible consequences of what is now being speculated.

In the past, I have repeatedly opposed any form of military action against my country as counterproductive. Today, I would like to be equally clear about expectations that Iran - and Syria for that matter - could become part of the solution in Iraq.

For some time, guilt-edged liberal opinion in America has been advocating engagement with the clerical regime in Iran. Diplomatic overtures and dialogue, inherently noble, should be the first resort in any conflict. But if policymakers wish to avoid disappointment, there needs to be a prior analysis of objectives. In this context: what is at stake, and what are the real chances of success in hoping that Iran will sanitise the climate in Iraq in a manner that is in line with US expectations?

If the US seeks Iran's cooperation in Iraq - in taming and disarming the feuding Shi'a (and Tehran-connected) militias run by Ayatollah Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr, or in encouraging prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to move towards power-sharing with the Sunni - a key question follows: what would be the Iranian rulers' price?

What price would the Islamic regime claim in exchange for undercutting its unearned foothold in Iraq, at a time when it regards the US and its global allies with acute hostility? If that price is a license to proceed with its opaque pursuit of dual-usage enrichment of uranium, could the Bush administration seriously contemplate it?

If, by contrast, Tehran seeks from any engagement a grand strategic bargain - encompassing (as well as the nuclear issue) Hizbollah, Hamas, jihadis, non-belligerence towards Israel, and a Palestinian settlement - then a different set of questions comes to mind.

In May 2003, the clerical regime signalled its willingness to come to terms with reality. The move's timing - barely a month after the lightning defeat of Saddam Hussein - speaks volumes about the motivations of Tehran's Islamist leadership. Now, circumstances have changed dramatically. The "awe" inspired by the United States blitzkrieg is replaced by contempt, meted out on a daily basis by Islamist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad, unlike his predecessor Mohammad Khatami, is a revolutionary revivalist. His powers are limited but his rhetoric has enthralled the ultra-conservative clerics and tied the hands of the more pragmatic elements. The notion of the Great Satan, in the psyche of genuine Khomeini disciples, is ideological. For them, America is the embodiment of corrupting influences that are detrimental to Islam's flourishing.

America is also seen as the architect and protector of the Jewish state and its perceived mortification of (Muslim) Palestinians. The feud against Israel, extending to holocaust-denial, has set the regime in a hostile mould. Only compelling reasons of self-preservation will alter this. Moreover, with the Islamic Republic in its current mindset, secure in cost-free intransigence, any dialogue - particularly one wishfully aimed at cushioning America's difficulties in Iraq - will achieve nothing other than to bestow unwarranted recognition and legitimacy to a rogue regime.

There is another side to such engagement. For twenty-seven years this theocracy has cast a pall over Iran. Its young population has been robbed of the chance to live the epoch in which they are born. A full generation has been traumatised, prisoners of conscience executed and dissidents murdered in their homes or forced to flee.

George W Bush has repeatedly pledged America's support of Iranians in their struggle for freedom and democracy. To engage with the current Islamic Republic in these circumstances would render America's moral pact hollow and meaningless. It would be a further tragedy if, after failing to introduce democracy by force in Iraq, Washington now underwrites tyranny by diplomacy in Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bayanieh Dabir khaneh Reza Pahlavi da morede "Gozaresh Gorohe Motaleati Iraq":


Matne in bayanieh zamimeh shodeh ast.

"Lotfan dar pakhshe har che gostardeh-tare in Bayanieh ma ra yari namaeed"

Dabir Khaneh Reza Pahlavi

بیانیۀ دبیرخانۀ رضا پهلوی
در مورد
گزارش گروه مطالعاتی عراق

آذرماه ۱۳۸۵ ۲۲
هم میهنان عزیز،

تشکیل «گـروه مطالعاتـی عراق» بـه ریاست آقایان «جیمزبیکـر» و «لـی هامیلتون» شایعاتی به همراه آورد کــه از تـزلـــزل و عـدم قــدرت تصمیم گیـری صحیـح و متنـاسب مقامـات آمریکـایی در رویارویـی با مشکلات عراق حکایت میکرد. سرانجام، همانگونه که پیش بینی میشد، گزارش «گـروه مطالعــاتی عـراق» سیاست آمریکـا در عراق را «ناکـارآمـد» خوانــد و بــرای به سامان رساندن آن راهکارهای تازه ای را به رئیس جمهور آمریکا پیشنهاد کرد.

در راستای این گزارش بسیاری از گردانندگـان سیاسی و شخصیت های مسئـول آمریکایی، چنین برداشت کرده اند که هرگــاه دولت آمریکا بخواهــد آرامش در عراق را از طریق تهران و دمشق به دست آورد، پیامــد چنیــن سیاستــی به استحکـام و ثبــات سیاســی حاکمیـن این دو کشور کمک خواهد کرد و آنــان را از انــزوایی که در اثـرعملکـرد نـامطلوب خودشـان، اینک در صحنۀ بین المللی گرفتار آن شده اند، بیرون خواهد آورد.

لـذا در آخریـن کنفـرانس مطبوعاتـی پرزید نت بوش ملاحظه شـد کـه شخص پرزید نت عمـلاً به دلایل زیر از پیشنهاداتی که در گزارش «بیکر- هامیلتون» در ارتباط با ایــران آمده است فاصله گرفت:

یک - دولت پرزیـد نت بـوش نـه می خواهــد و نـه می توانــد دست دولـت جمهـوری اسلامی را، در زمینۀ انرژی هسته ای به هدف تولید بمب اتمی باز گـذارد و نیز، نمی تواند سرنوشت سیاسی منطقه را عملاً در دست ایران رها کند تا این حکومت پایه های سلطۀ ستمگرانه خود را استوار سازد و به حیات سیاسی خود ادامه دهد.

دو- دولت پرزید نت بوش، مانند همـۀ آگاهان سیاست بین المللی، بویـژه نخست وزیر بریتانیا، به خوبی آگاه هستنـد که نَفس حکومت اسلامی ایـران با آرامش و سـازش سازگاری ندارد و چنانچه بطــور کاملاً جـدی زیـرفشار شکننــده ای قـرار نگیرد، هرگــز دست ازآشوبگــری و دخالت در کشورهای دیگـر، بویـژه عراق، لبنان، افغانستان و فلسطین بــرنخواهد داشت، حتی اگر به توافق ظاهری با دیگران هم برسد.

هرچنــد گزارش «بیکـر- هامیلتـون» سردرگمی در بعضی از محافل سیاسـی بوجـود آورده است ولی از نظرمردم ایـران بخصوص نسل بعـد از انقلاب، که دست آورد انقلاب چیزی جز خفقان، بیکاری و بی عدالتـی نبوده است، این تغییر روش و سیاست پیشنهادی، تفاوتـی به بار نمی آورد. ایرانیـان خواهـان برکناری و گُـذر از حکومت اسلامی هستند چـه آمریکا بخواهـد و چه نخواهـد، زیرا اینگونه نوسانات در روش و سیاست دیگر کشورهای جهان نسبت به جمهوری اسلامی نمی تواند اثــر منفی در مبارزۀ مردم ایران برای بـرافکندن این رژیم برجای بـگذارد. نمونـۀ بارز آن دراخیرترین اعتراضات دانشجویـان دانشگـــاه امیرکبیـر (پلــی تکنیک تهــران) بــرضــد فاشیزم و دیکتاتوری رژیم مشاهده گردید.

بدون تردیـد سردمداران جمهوری اسلامی به گمـان آن کـه گـزارش «بیـکر – هامیلتـون» راه را برای کاستن از فشارهــای بین المللی برآنـان همــوار خواهـد کــرد و دولت آمریکا نیـز ناچـار به کنار آمدن با آنان خواهد بود، اکنون دست به گستاخی های جسورانه تری، مانند آنچه که اخیراً از طریق عواملشـان درلبنـان شکل گرفتــه و یا برپایـی همایش زیر سئــوال بردن «هولوکاست» در تهران و یا اعـلام رسمی پـرداخت ۲۵۰ میلیون دلار دیگر از کیسۀ ملت در عذاب فقر ایران، به عوامل حماس در فلسطین دست زده اند. اما ایرانیان و دست اندرکاران واقعی سیاست بین المللی که با طبیعت فتنه انگیــز حکومت اسلامی آشنا هستنــد، به خوبی می داننـد کـه این حکومت بقای خود را در سرگرم کـردن تــودۀ مردم ایران و تحریک عوامــل بنیادگــرا در سراسر جهان برای ماجراجویی در عرصۀ بین المللی می جویـد. تا پیامدهــای بی کفایتی خــود را در اداره کشور به دشمنان و یا مسایل واهی خارجی که خود روزانه آنها را احیاء می نماید، نسبت دهـد. بنابراین نه تنها هیچ امیـــدی به دست برداشتــن آنـان از ماجراجویــی وجود نــدارد، بلکــه بـه زودی شرایط دشوارتری را دامنگیر مردم رنجدیــدۀ ایران خواهند ساخت. جمهوری اسلامی با تکیه بر سیاست بحران زایی باتلاقی برای خود بوجود آورده است که هیچ راهی برای خروج از آن را ندارد.

درشرایط حساسی که ما ایرانیــان با آن روبرو هستیم، نه تنهـا هوشیاری سیاسی برای تحت تاثیر قرار نگرفتن از برداشت های نادرست، از ضروریات مبارزه است، بلکه لازم است که نیروهای مبارز سیاسی با آگاهی از ذات و نیات آشوبگرانۀ حکومت جمهوری اسلامی، خود را برای ایفای نقش آگاهــانـۀ خـود، در شرایط بحران هـای شدیدتـرسیاسی کـه حکومت اسلامی، هــم در صحنۀ بین المللی و هم در عرصــۀ داخلی کشور با آنها روبــرو خواهد شد، آماده سازنـد و اجازه ندهند، سران حکومت اسلامی با سوء استفاده از شرایطی که پیش آمــده است، خود را از تنگنایی که در آن گرفتار آمده اند رها سازند.

خداوند نگهدار ایران باد
دبیرخانۀ رضا پهلوی
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matne in Bayanieh payvast shodeh ast:


بيانيۀ رضا پهلوی
قطعنامۀ ١٧٣٧ شورای امنيت سازمان ملل
دوشنبه ۴ ديماه ١٣٨۵
هم ميهنان عزيزم،
سرانجام، شورای امنيت سازمان ملل متحد در شامگاه روز شنبه ٢٣ دسامبر ٢٠٠۶ ، به اتفاق
خود را عليه حکومت اسلامی تصويب کرد. قطعنامه ١٧٣٧ تأکيد « تنبيهی » آراء نخستين قطعنامه
می کند که ايران بايد همۀ فعاليت های غنی سازی اورانيوم و پروژه های مربوط به آب سنگين را
متوقف سازد، و از همۀ کشورهای جهان خواسته است از هر نوع همکاری مستقيم و غير مستقيم
با حکومت اسلامی در اين زمينه ها خودداری ورزند. سرمايه ها و دارائی های بسياری از
سازمان ها و موسسات در ايران و مسئولان برخی از آنها که در اين زمينه فعاليت دارند مسدود
خواهد شد و مسافرت بسياری از مسئولان، از جمله فرمانده سپاه پاسداران به خارج ممنوع شده
است. همچنين، تصويب قطعنامه ١٧٣٧ ، به وضوح نمايانگر سه واقعيت بسيار تلخ ديگر برای
نظام دين سالار در ايران نيز می باشد:
١. تصويب قطعنامه ١٧٣٧ به اتفاق آراء در شورای امنيت سازمان ملل متحد، نشانۀ
شکست و ورشکستگی کامل جمهوری اسلامی در عرصه ديپلماسی بين المللی می باشد.
٢. تصويب قطعنامه با پشتيبانی کشورهائی چون روسيه، چين و قطر در شورای امنيت به
وضوح نمايانگر اين حقيقت است که هيچيک از کشورهای عضو شورای امنيت، ادعای
ايران مبنی بر اينکه هدفی جز تعقيب استفاده صلحجويانه از انرژی اتمی ندارد را نمی
پذيرند، و از اين طريق خواستار جلوگيری از هر اقدام ماجراجويانه ايران در زمينه
دستيابی به سلاح های هسته ای و موشک های دوربرد باليستيک می باشند.
اولين بار است که جمهوری اسلامی را در چند ،« تنبيهی » ٣. گرچه تصويب اين قطعنامه
سال اخير وادار به پرداخت بهائی برای عدم تمکينش به اراده بين المللی در ارتباط با
پرونده اتمی ايران می سازد، ولی ترديدی نيست که اين هزينه در صورت عدم همکاری
جمهوری اسلامی با مقامات آژانس بين المللی انرژی اتمی و اعضای دائمی شورای
امنيت، در ماه های آينده می تواند بطور هولناکی افزايش يابد.
درهمين قطعنامه به حکومت اسلامی هشدار داده شده است که هرگاه فعاليت های غنی سازی
اورانيوم را در يک ضرب الاجل ۶٠ روزه متوقف نکند، با تحريم های بيشتری در زمينه های
اقتصادی، روابط ديپلماتيک، حمل و نقل و ارتباطات روبرو خواهد شد.
سياست خارجی ادامۀ سياست داخلی است، آنان که با استبداد و فاشيزم مذهبی و سياست های
نابکارانه و مافيايی خود در هر زمينه ای از ادارۀ جامعۀ ايرانی وامانده اند، چارۀ بقا و ادامۀ
حکومت جابرانه و قرون وسطايی خود را در دستيابی به بمب اتمی ديده اند.
از اين رو با شعارهای ملی گرايی دست يافتن به اين سلاح خطرناک را حق مسلم مردم ايران
وانمود ميکنند، تا مبارزات حق طلبانه، عدالت جويانه و آزاديخواهانۀ آنها را با اين مستمسک از
مسيردرست منحرف و دچار نُکث سازند، واز سوی ديگرجامعۀ جهانی را با سياست ارعاب و
ترور بسکوت در برابرحق کشی های رژيم ضد ملی خود وادارکنند.
هم ميهنان عزيزم،
بدين سان، بايد برهمگان روشن باشد که رژيم فاشيزم مذهبی کنونی احساسات ملی ايرانيان را
برای ادامۀ حيات نکبت بار خود در داخل ببازی گرفته است. ولی تحريک احساسات ملی برای
اين اهداف کاری است خطرناک و برای مملکت و ملت ايران حاصلی جز ويرانی و بدبختی بيشتر
در برنخواهد داشت.
تاريخ مبارزات سياسی ايران به ما آموخته است که اتخاذ چنين روشی نه تنها راه را بر آنچه که
جامعه با مشکلات زياد در جهت دستيابی به آزادی و دموکراسی آغاز کرده است، بسته است،
بلکه اين مردم هستند که ساليان دراز هزينه پرداز چنين سياست های غلط و ماجراجويانه ای
خواهند بود.
نهايتا، مردم ايران بايد هشيار باشند و بدانند که اين نخستين گام تنبيهی جامعۀ بين المللی به همين
جا محدود نخواهد شد و روش کنونی حکومت اسلامی بحران های سخت تری را روياروی مردم
ايران قرارخواهد داد و زندگی روزمرۀ آنان را با دشورای هايی از قبيل آنچه که مردم عراق و
کرۀ شمالی در سنوات اخير با آن روبرو بوده اند درگيرخواهد ساخت.
لذا برفردفرد ماست که متحدانه و با هشياری تمام عامل اصلی اين بحران ضد ملی را به چالش
کشيده و تحريم جامعۀ جهانی را با حذف کامل جمهوری اسلامی از درون همراه سازيم.
خداوند نگهدار ايران باد
رضا پهلوی
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:45 pm    Post subject: Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi Reply with quote

Excellent Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi Interview With Mr. Baaharloo VOA
شاهزاده رضا پهلوی
ايران بيست و هشت سال پس از انقلاب اسلامی


Please be advised that Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi will on VOA.

You can watch HIM on Mr. Baaharloo's program tomorrow, Friday February 2, 2007 at 12:30 EST.

Please circulate this mail to everyone you know especially inside Iran .



Baa doroud
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Today, Shah's Iran doesn't look so bad Reply with quote

Today, Shah's Iran doesn't look so bad
Eli Schwartz


''If these were his enemies, the Shah doesn't seem that
bad. The severity of his regime pales by comparison to
what followed.''

When making a radical change, good sense requires that you consider the alternative. In 1978, the coalition that overthrew the Shah of Iran consisted of the bazaar merchants who disliked the Shah's move to modernize the economy, including the merchandising sector; representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization who objected to Iran's recognition of Israel; the Tudeh, Iranian communist party; the Mujadin, composed of students following their fashionable new-left ideology and the misled intelligentsia; all these under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers, fundamentalist Muslims who hated the Shah's regime for its tilt toward secularism, modernism, Westernization and America.

If these were his enemies, the Shah doesn't seem that bad. The severity of his regime pales by comparison to what followed. The revolutionaries held one-day secret mock trials, followed by next-day executions. Government officials and army officers went first, followed in short order by the Tudeh. Next came the suppression of the Bahai and the Zorastorians.

Of course, a large part of the Khomeini supporters, the majority of the students and the intellectuals, never expected such a violent purge. The Ayatollah had deceived them.

Of the many factors that eventually make for a better life, the Shah's record was quite good. Economic growth is always spotty, leaving some people behind. Nevertheless, the growth in Iranian per capita real income averaged around 6 percent a year over the 25 years of his government. It reached a peak of $6,700 in 1976, $6,400 in 1977, and fell to $5,400 in 1978, the year of the revolution. It averaged well below this level in all the years that followed. Now, with oil prices at a high 30 years later, it has reached the 1976 level.

Iran's record on education was notable. The literacy rate in 1955 was somewhere below 10 percent. The Shah's regime tried to make available primary school education covering 100 percent of the children. The literacy rate at the end of his time was about 80 percent. (Of course, the fundamentalists were enraged that the publicly funded schools were secular.) Much was done with higher education. The enrollment in secondary schools went from about 150,000 to 1.2 million students, and at the higher education level, enrollment rose from about 3,000 to 150,000 students (of whom 31 percent were female). In addition a goodly number attended U.S. and European schools under scholarships financed by the Pahlavi Foundation, i.e., the Shah's family fund.

The Shah's foreign policy was moderate and western-oriented. The Middle East is a turbulent area, but within his segment the Shah maintained a stabilizing influence. He tried to fend off Soviet encroachment and he established a sort of de-facto protectorate for the oil producing Persian Gulf states. At any rate for as long as his regime was in power, there was a period of stability in the region.

It is difficult to trace all the elements that led to the Shah's downfall. The Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolt was expelled from the country some years earlier. He first found refuge and muted encouragement in France. (Perhaps some resentment of American and British oil interests in Iran may have resided in France because their original place in the British French consortium that had first developed Persian oil had been displaced?) The Ayatollah's next sanctuary and place of encouragement was in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Khomeini's incendiary speeches were taped, produced in volume and widely circulated in Iran. No doubt Saddam thought that if Khomeini deposed the Shah, Iran would be vitally weakened and Iraq could then move in and annex a province or two. (In fact, the ensuing Iraq-Iran war was a draw and a sad blood bath for both countries.)

The late Jeanne Kirkpatrick once made a nice distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. The Shah was at the most autocratic; he never brought his full powers to bear against the revolt. The Shah's American ally under President Jimmy Carter was inconsistent and President Carter proved himself completely inept. The growing Iranian middle and professional class should have supported the Shah, but they have told me, they were deceived by Khomeini. Sad. They neglected the ancient Hindu proverb, ''Do not ride to power on the back of the tiger.''

Eli Schwartz is professor emeritus of economics and finance at Lehigh University in Bethlehem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:10 pm    Post subject: Demonstration of 22 Bahman, in front of the Iranian occupied Reply with quote

From: Association of Wisdom and Tradition of Iran [mailto:info@awti.org]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:20 AM
To: Association of Wisdom and Tradition of Iran
Subject: T azahorat 22 bahman dar London

Demonstration of 22 Bahman, in front of the Iranian occupied Embassy in London, UK. (Video clip).
Please click on URL below.
Film tazahorat 22 bahman amsal dar London kh dar tarnamai ma mojood mibashad

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Ambassador Hakimi for the wonderful video.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:53 am    Post subject: Prince Reza Pahlavi: Delusions of Policy Makers Reply with quote

Prince Reza Pahlavi: Delusions of Policy Makers
April 03, 2007
Secretariat of Reza Pahlavi
Hudson Institute Briefing Series

Hudson Institute Briefing Series

Iran, Regime Change or Behavior Change: A false choice

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests good afternoon.

Allow me to express my gratitude for the invitation to be with you today. To many of you whom I know personally, I extend my admiration and respect for the great work you have done over the years. To those I meet for the first time, thank you for letting me have the privilege of getting to know you.

The Hudson Institute’s proud tradition of service to world peace includes the great work of those, like Herman Kahn, who dared to “think the unthinkable.” You can imagine the depth of my sorrow that today, the “unthinkable” concerns my homeland.

The latest Presidential National Security Directive names the Islamic Republic of Iran as the greatest threat to international peace, security and stability. That is principally because permitting the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism to acquire nuclear weapons is unthinkable.

What has changed from Herman Kahn’s era is that mutual assured destruction (MAD) worked against a rival that defined its interests in this material world. Messrs. Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and many of their cohorts do not.

How can assured destruction deter those who glorify self-destruction and call it martyrdom? Just as suicide bombing has changed domestic security policies, dealing with the nuclearization of this new kind of “other-worldly” state requires a different approach in international relations. Far from acting to avoid assured destruction, they invite it with tireless exaltation of martyrdom! Which brings us to the question, what could be done?

The current debate on Iran seems to have reduced the question to a choice between regime change and behavior change. That is a false choice. It is also a formulation preferred by those who do not mind loading the dice in favor of longer life for Iran’s clerical regime. This is because short memories equate regime change with the use of force in Iraq. The unique mistakes in Iraq, however, should not sully regime change, which wasn’t such a bad phrase during the Cold War era, just two decades ago:

President Reagan knew that he would not get behavior change from the Soviet regime unless he seemed serious about changing it. The actual change was a happy byproduct, which spelled the end of the Marxist mystique. East-European youth backpacked their way to the West to tell fellow students about the wide chasm between the deceptive promise of Marxism and its wretched reality. Long lines to take Marxist courses disappeared in Universities, from Buenos Aires to Paris.

Similarly, I am convinced once the people bring down the clerical regime, with Iranian journalists, intellectuals and students free to travel, they will have the same shattering impact on the appeal of Islamist theocracy throughout the Moslem world.

Ah, but Russia was more modern than the Middle East, riper for democracy – some say. They are perhaps unaware that Iran had a democratic “Constitutional Revolution,” fully 100 years ago, when Russia was still Czarist. They would be much surprised to learn that, in 1914, the Times of London wrote that British Parliamentarians would be well served to emulate democratic practices from their counterparts, in Iran’s Majles (parliament)!

They know even less about the differences between Iran, which was never colonized, and Iraq, whose constituent parts were governed separately under Ottoman rule, which decapitated its independent political institutions and postponed our Iraqi brethren’s opportunity to develop a sense of nationhood.

Still, it was easier to talk favorably about regime change in 2004 or 2005, when Iraqis were celebrating free elections and the Cedar Revolution was gaining steam in Lebanon. That is when Tehran’s theocrats and Syria’s Assad sensed the danger and set out to kill the hope for democracy in the region. They exploited religious and ethnic divisions to create a quagmire as a no-trespass sign to the rest of the world: Shelve any plans for democracy in the region, from the subcontinent to the Mediterranean, and from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf – read the sign.

The Baker-Hamilton Report is a tacit acceptance of that no-trespass sign. Unfortunately, the report does not indicate how one can reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic, whose primary purpose is to humiliate the US in the theater of the Moslem world. There is method to their madness: The theocracy’s anachronistic life is mortgaged on proving to regional governments, and non-governmental forces, that those who oppose America will defeat those who cooperate with her.

The State Department’s policy on Iran relies on diplomatic isolation and economic pressure. It is more hard-nosed than Baker-Hamilton, but it still suffers from the flaws of realpolitik when facing an irrational actor. Isolation? What isolation, demands President Ahmadinejad!

The day he was squaring off against President Bush at the UN General Assembly, last fall, 118 out of the 192 nations present, more than 60%, were with him. He had just come from Cuba, where he had secured the support of the non-aligned movement. He had been received like a rock star by radical students in Indonesia, applauded by Castro in Cuba, and bear-hugged by Chavez in Venezuela.

Those in Foggy Bottom who think they can make Ahmadinejad feel isolated simply cannot see the world through his eyes. Even if he felt isolated, it is doubtful he would change his behavior. Even the threat of force is not enough to sway someone whose deepest beliefs welcome Armageddon – to expedite the return of the twelfth Imam, his messiah!

As for economic pressures, recent history should have convinced us that they are not enough to change the behavior of a regime that does not care about the welfare of its people. In more than two years of negotiations, Iran’s major European trade partners, Germany, France and Britain played with numerous combinations of economic threats and incentives, before they threw in the towel. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the UN Security Council shortly thereafter.

Backed by the Russians and the Chinese, last June the US joined the Europeans to offer a very generous incentive package, should the regime suspend enrichment of uranium. Two deadlines came and passed, with the Islamic Republic dancing around the proposal, but not addressing its substance. Just as Presidents Bush, Putin and Chirac, Prime Minister Blair, and Chancellor Merkel were about to discuss what to do, Hizbullah crossed the Israeli border and took two hostages. Thus, the war precipitated by the Islamic Republic’s client washed discussions of pressuring Iran off the agenda at the St. Petersburg G8 Summit, late July of last year.

It should not come as a surprise any longer that, three more deadlines and three UN Security Council resolutions later, we are back at the same old dance; except it has become more deadly, considering the regime’s plan for three thousand centrifuges and new restrictions placed on international inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities; begging the question: To what level could unilateral US sanctions be expanded to, or what other UN sanctions could be acceptable to Russia and China?

In short, US foreign policy and international pressure are reaching their limit, while the government whose head denies the Holocaust and wants an entire nation wiped off the map, is inching ever closer to the bomb!

Having removed the Taliban and Saddam - two walls of Iran’s containment - having approached the limits of diplomatic and economic pressures, many discussions of US options now teeter between war and surrender. Surrender, by the way, has a fascinating new name: Engage and Deter! We engaged China to get out of Vietnam, why can’t we do the same with Iran to exit Iraq? That was the question put to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a Council of Foreign Relations fellow, who seemed to put some Senators in deep thought.

We deterred the Soviet Union, why can’t we deter Iran, is more music to the ears of the Islamic Republic, playing in Washington these days. Perhaps, it is the current mood of desperation on Iraq, but few policymakers seem to peel these thin disguises of surrender and see through the false parallels and specious arguments:

A cursory review of history will demonstrate that Henry Kissinger’s deal with China was possible because the latter saw the Soviets as the principal threat to her security. He knew how real that threat was when Leonid Brezhnev asked President Nixon to give him a free hand with China and stay out of a potential Sino-Soviet nuclear conflict. There is today, no such parallel with the Islamic Republic, which does not see a third party as the principal threat, let alone seeing the US as a possible savior!

In this new disguise for surrender, mention of deterrence is even less valid, but requires more insight to expose. During the cold war, nuclear deterrence gave the West an advantage: the Warsaw Pact’s conventional forces were quantitatively superior and nuclear arms acted as an equalizer in the European theater.

In the Persian Gulf today, it is the US that has overwhelming conventional superiority. Should the Islamic Republic get the bomb, it will equalize that superiority and deter a high-intensity conventional attack. The nuclear shield will, thus, open the hands of the Islamic Republic to expand low intensity violence -- a.k.a. terrorism -- in furtherance of its constitutional mission of exporting Islamic Revolution. Hamas, Hizbullah, the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigade and the like will then look ten feet taller than their intimidated moderate rivals.

As one witness after another comforts Congressional leaders that the Islamic Republic can be deterred, I do not hear the riposte that even their best scenario means unshackling terrorism, let alone their worst! Nor does the administration seem to be able to lead Congress away from such harmful and deceptive advice, because it is ill-equipped to deal with unconventional states.

Washington’s foreign policy is shaped by the State Department that understands diplomacy and the Defense Department that understands war. Both institutions are legacies of the state-centric view of the world which was consistent with the reality of international politics right after World War II – but not today, not after the Cold War.

The Departments of State and Defense were not structured to help “velvet” revolutions, which have been the most significant patterns of positive change in the world since the Cold War. The problem is that the US does not have a third foreign policy department; one that understands, and can deal, with the peoples of the transitional world, not just their failed states.

Is it all lost then? Are we back to war or surrender? Far from it! We haven’t focused on the greatest ally of the Free World in the Moslem World: the people of Iran. Three Iranian social groups, the women, youth and ethnic groups, as well as four professional and working groups, educators, lawyers, journalists and industrial labor, have been at the forefront of protests against and defiance of the Islamic Republic. Two of the top three Iranian cities, Tabriz and Mashhad, as well as other major cities, such as Sanandaj, have been out of government control, for days at a time.

The principal reason why the vast majority of Iranians who want to reclaim peace and prosperity have not succeeded against the Islamic Republic is because they are prevented from communicating – with each other, and with the free world.

Inside Iran, the government controls mass media with an iron fist. Even “Bloggers” with a limited audience are arrested, let alone published journalists – and there are more of them in jail than anywhere in the world.

A must have for Iran’s pro-democracy movement is media that can connect Iranian activists inside Iran with each other. As I have mentioned before, there are a thousand circles of protest in Iran, but no nationwide medium to connect them. Since the government will not tolerate such a medium inside Iran, it has to be done from outside.

As some of you may know, there are a few under-funded amateur-video type satellite television stations, beaming into Iran from the West. But they cannot even afford decent old movies, let alone produce meaningful programming.

Then there is the Voice of America Radio and Television, and a forthcoming TV channel by the BBC. Although much improved, their governmental mission statements and cautious bureaucracies have not, and are not likely to, make a serious impact in Iran.

What is needed is engaging programming that builds audience share by truly reflecting the needs, grievances and resistance of Iranian women, youth, ethnic groups and the professional groups. Given needed resources, modern technology makes it quite possible to have two-way communication between the politically active audience inside Iran and a medium outside which can connect them to each other. That is what it takes to mobilize the Iranian people – without whom, we are back to war or surrender.

I never miss a chance to reject military action against my homeland.

I am against war. I hope you are too, and I can not believe that you would be for surrender. Thus, we are left with regime change vs. behavior change. And as indicated earlier, that is a false choice. So what is the right choice?

Like most totalitarian leaders, Iran’s Supreme Islamist leader wakes up every morning wondering if the morale and ideological glue of his security forces will hold. To strengthen their spine, he feels he has to take tough, uncompromising stands against his ideological adversaries – liberal democracies in general, and the United States and Israel in particular.

The reckless self-righteousness of his “other-worldly” ideology will continue this course, until a final collision. This behavior will not change unless he wakes up one morning with an even greater fear: seeing the Iranian people joining hands and rising up against his theocratic tyranny.

Unlike forgetful analysts in the West, he knows the Iranian people have changed their regimes many times before, when they had far less reasons to do so. He watches carefully for the signs of history repeating itself. Once he sees those signs, and only then, will he change his behavior.

That is why idealism and realism, behavior change and regime change do not require different policies but the same: empowering the Iranian people.

This is my political mission in life. I ask for your support, and thank you sincerely for sharing some of your valuable time with me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:23 pm    Post subject: Statement by Reza Pahlavi of Iran - Democracy & Security Reply with quote

Statement by Reza Pahlavi of Iran - Democracy & Security Conference
Reza Pahlavi Secretariat
Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

Democracy & Security Conference
Prague, Czech Republic

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have come to Prague to ask for your solidarity with the people of Iran against a common enemy: Islamist preachers of intolerance who turn young men and women into walking bombs, shouting death to America, death to Israel, death to whosoever resists their murderous ideology.

To the realpolitik cynics who say Islamist theocracy is a reality we have to live with, I respond: funny – they never said they can live with YOU! To those who say the theocrats can reform if we are nice to them, I say you do not know the difference between Islamist revolution and secular ones. Those who believe they speak with the absolute authority of Allah demand absolute submission.

As the Islamist regime of Iran develops nuclear weapons, to neutralize Western conventional superiority, to have a free hand to use low-intensity violence in support of exporting Islamist revolution, remember this: good strategy is not fighting the enemy’s strengths, at the nuclear negotiations table where they hold the cards, or on the streets of neighboring countries where they find sympathy. Good strategy aims at their weakness: Inside Iran, where the people know the theocrats' wretched reality, rather than neighbors who only hear their divine promise.

Islamist theocrats' incompetence in delivering a minimal level of welfare and freedom is driving Iran's women, youth, teachers, workers, ethnic groups and many others to resist Hizbullahi stormtroopers in Iranian cities everyday. All those courageous Iranians want is to join the Free World. The Free World must respond.

Four years of diplomatic jostling, of economic carrots and sticks, have proven the insensitivity of theocrats to external pressures. What has not been tried is tying external pressures to human rights in Iran, to boosting the morale of Iranians in their everyday resistance, to encouraging internal pressures that Islamists can feel.

From Iran's different faiths, ethnic groups and social sectors, from the left to the right of the political spectrum, from my brave countrymen and women struggling for human dignity and freedom, this is the message I carry to you: As you face our oppressors, do not turn your back to us. We are your best friends in the struggle against a common enemy, the enemy of peace on earth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prince Cyrus Reza Pahlavi interview with Radio Farda

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:23 am    Post subject: Shah's Exiled Son: Don't Attack Iran Reply with quote

Shah's Exiled Son: Don't Attack Iran

June 09, 2007
Lily Galili


Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last shah of Iran, suggests taking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to annihilate Israel very seriously. However, he suggests refraining from military action against his country. That's not what scares the regime there," he explains. "What scares it are the opponents from within, who should be strengthened. An attack from outside could give this regime carte blanche to do anything, and even lead to a nationalist awakening that would bring into its camp people who do not belong to it now."

Pahlavi spoke with Haaretz at a gathering in Prague of dissidents from 17 countries that was sponsored by the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center. For the past 19 years he has lived in Washington, where he married a woman of Iranian descent and fathered three daughters. He operates from the exile he entered at age 19 like a bench player who practices determinedly for the moment when he is called to step back onto the court. Two years ago he even went on a hunger strike to demand the release of political prisoners, even though he cannot escape the fact that during his father's reign there were many political prisoners in Iran.

"I am not saying there were no mistakes made under the previous regime," he says. "But you have to remember the context of that time. Those were the days of the Cold War, and there was in Iran a sense that the Soviet Union wanted to turn us into its satellite. I can understand why the public went along with the revolution, but I also know that no one wished for the tragic result of today."

Iranian exiles, who come from polar opposite groups, have a complicated attitude toward the Shah's son, and their interests truly overlap only in the desire to overthrow the current regime.

Asked whether he supports a return of the monarchy, Pahlavi replies diplomatically. "The people will decide," he says. "One of the options is indeed a parliamentary monarchy. That suits the character of our people. In heterogeneous societies, the monarchy is a symbol of unity".

Pahlavi says he has been feeling encouraged lately, especially following the recent statements on Iran by France's new president.

"It is possible that the divide-and-conquer system that sabotages the efforts to eradicate such regimes is now being replaced by greater unity," he says hopefully. "We have in Iran now an inquisition like the one they had in Europe and that was followed by the Renaissance. We are not far from that. Iran needs a further push, additional pressure on the regime by means of sanctions that hurt the system without hurting its citizens.... The Iranians must become convinced that the world is serious enough not to abandon them along the way."

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Shah's son is accorded a wary respect. He wasn't an original invitee to the conference, which was organized by Natan Sharansky, Vaclav Havel and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and whose high point was an appearance by George Bush en route to the G-8 meeting. With so many conflicting interests among the regimes the human rights crusaders hailed from including Egypt, Sudan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and others it was hard to spot the unifying political interest, aside from the participants' subjective feeling that they represent absolute good opposing the absolute evil in the world. At times, the uniting factor was anger at Bush, like that which linked Garry Kasparov, a vehement Putin opponent, and Saad al-Din Ibrahim, a noted freedom fighter from Egypt and longtime opponent of Mubarak's. For years they have felt that Bush betrayed them along the way, based on erroneous considerations, and they got a chance to tell him so during a brief meeting with the U.S. president in Prague.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:26 pm    Post subject: Letter in Iranian.com: IRAN-U.S. Reply with quote

For all of you to know about the shady ones!

Manuchehr Mosadeq wrote:

From: Manuchehr Mosadeq [mailto:mmosadeq@inorbit.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 9:46 PM
To: sorayau@earthlink.net; nader@uci.edu
Cc: jj@iranian.com; sorayau@earthlink.net; dpourkesali@yahoo.com; casmii.nyc@gmail.com; yasmine@eng.gla.ac.uk; shahriarz@hotmail.com; nayereh.tohidi@csun.edu; eichhorn.rashidian@t-online.de
Subject: Letter in Iranian.com: IRAN-U.S.

Dear Prof. Bagherzadeh,

One more time, Mrs. Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich (SSU) demonstrated to all of us that she is a sub-standard researcher and chronologist, a 5th class at best! This time to give validity to her mambo-jumbo writings and to cover up her ignorance, Mrs. SSU has co-authored her latest letter titled “IRAN-U.S. High on hate? ” with another shady character, Nader Bagherzadeh (NB), a Ph.D. in EE.

The letter, IRAN-U.S. High on hate? is full of historical errors, character assassination, and unsubstantiated accusations of some of the most patriotic Iranians. Let’s analyze her mambo-jumbo:

1. Khobar Towers bombing did NOT occur in 1993 as stated in SSU’s letter. In fact it occurred on June 25, 1996, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing.

2. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran has no dangerous ambitions about Iran. His intentions towards Iran are totally sincere, see http://www.rezapahlavi.org/articles/?english&id=110. Of course, we all know that SSU/NB and her treasonous ilk’s would love to continue the status quo, i.e., let the mullahs continue to rape, plunder, terrorize, and take as hostage the whole world. This, the civilized world can NOT allow to happen.

3. SSU’s & NB’s claim of deaths of more than 655,000 in the war against terrorism. First, where is the source for this claim? Second, the Islamic Republic has directly and indirectly caused the death, destruction, and destitute of millions.

Now, here are the real facts. The Islamic Republic of Mullahs has directly participated in of caused the:

· Death, imprisonment, and purging of tens of thousands of military generals, officers, pilots, cabinet members, civilians during 1979-1980, simply for the sin of association,

· Death, imprisonment, and fleeing of tens of thousands of the political opponents, e.g., MEK’s, the leftists, etc., who by the way helped the mullahs to take power,

· Death of over of 1,000,000 Iranians through the 8-year long war with Iraq which was instigated by Ayatollah Khomeini for his desire to export the Islamic Revolution to the neighboring countries.

· Taking of 52 American hostages for 444 days,

· Bombing of the US Embassies and Marines Building in 1979, 1980, 1983.

· Taking American university professors, journalists, and state department staff as hostage during the mid 80’s

· Killing the Iranian oppositions all over Europe and across the world including PM Shahpour Bakhtiyar who happened to be an ally of the late Dr. Mosadeq.

· I leave the completion of this list to others….

I don’t know the relationship between Prof. Bagherzadeh and Mrs. Sepahpour-Ulrich. I assume it is purely based on intellectual collaboration and not other humane factors. But, I would suggest that Prof. Bagherzadeh spends more attention reviewing his student’s work before they publish it. After all, isn’t that a basic teaching in a graduate school. Don’t be high on ignorance!


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

پيام رضا پهلوی
بمناسبت سالگرد جنبش ١٨ تير
١٨ تيرماه ١٣٨۶
هم ميهنان عزيزم،
جنبش دانشجويی ايران به راستی يکی از پُر آوازه ترين و سرنوشت ساز ترين جنبش های
دانشجويی در جهان است. نه در برلن ونه در پاريس، نه در سئول ونه در پکن، در هيچ کجا نمی
توان يک مشابه آن را يافت.
چنانچه اين جنبش با جنبش های ديگر در آميزد و به روستاها و کارگاهها سرايت کند، چنانچه
انديشه و کار دست اتحاد به هم رسانند، بنياد ساختارهای استبداد دينی را دستخوش لرزه ای مرگبار
خواهند کرد.
آن روز که جنبش دانشجويی پُر افتخار ايران با خيل عظيم بی کاران و رنجبران شهر و روستا پيوند
برادری زند، نظم مردمی، نظام ضد مردمی اصول گرايان و مهرورزان و اصلاح طلبان و دلالان دين
فروش را به سوق فرو پاشی خواهد کشاند.
نظم نوين مردمی را بايد از پايه سامان داد و آن پايه جز خود مردم و نياز های حياتی آنان، جز کارگر
و جز دهقان، جز رنجبران فکری و جسمی شهر و روستا نيست. در اثر مراوده و تبادل زندۀ اطلاعات
با اينان است که واحه های نظام مردمی يکی پس از ديگری شبکه آسا سراسر ايران را خواهد
پوشاند. حاکميت مردم را با يد با بر پايی نظامات مقبول و سامان دادن به واقعيت های نوين اجتماعی
بر تارک تاريک اند يشان و وا پس گرايان، به ضرب نيروی توانای نمونۀ بر تر، تحميل کرد.
آری، دموکراسی وارداتی نيست! دموکراسی، يعنی سامان دادن به کار مردم به دست مردم و برای
مردم. و اين، آن پرچمی است که شما دانشجويان بايد بر د وش بکشيد و به ميان مردم ببريد!
برای شما عزيزان، که از زندان و شکنجه نمی هراسيد و جانانه و بی پروا ايستاده، از حق تعيين
سرنوشت ملت ايران تا پای جان د فاع ميکنيد، آرزوی پيروزی دارم.
خداوند نگهدارايران باد
رضا پهلوی
P.O. Box 341907 Bethesda, MD. 20827, U.S.A.
Tel: 301-765-7007 Fax: 301-765-7009
iran@rezapahlavi.org www.rezapahlavi.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

پیام رضا پهلوی بمناسبت یکصد و یکمین سالگرد جنبش مشروطیت

یکشنبه ۱۴ امرداد ماه ۱۳۸۶

هم میهنان عزیزم،

یکصد و یک سال پیش هنگامی که بسیاری از کشورهای جهان از نعمت حق تعیین سرنوشت خـود محروم بودند، ملت ایـران بمنظور کسب آزادی و برقراری عدالت و حکومت قانون و جبـران عقب ماندگی های گذشته و همگام شدن با دنیای متمدن و پیشرفته، به انقلاب ملی مشروطیت دست زد که با فداکاری و پایداری طبقات مختلف مردم و با رهبــری و هدایت جمعی از روشنفکران، روحانیـان و نویسنـدگان میهن دوست بثمـررسید و کلیۀ توطئه های مرتجعان و مخالفان آزادی، حتی در دورۀ چند ماهـۀ «استبداد صغیر» درهــم شکستـه شــد و سرانجام ملت ایران پیروز شد.

ملت ایران با عبوراز فراز و نشیب های متعددی توانست به بسیاری از اهداف ملی انقلاب مشروطیت دست یابد، اما متاسفانـه در بهمن ماه ۱۳۵۷، گروه هایی واپسگــرا که ماهیت واقعی و نیات سوء آنها هر روز بیشتر روشن میشود، دستآوردهای انقلاب ملـی مشروطیت و امیدهـای آینــدۀ آنــرا بباد داده و کشور و ملت را به مصیبت های بسیار، از جمله به یک استبــداد بی سابقه دچار ساختنـد و فعالانه میکوشند ایران عزیز ما را چندین قرن به عقب بازگردانند.

امروز بجای مدرنیته، تمدن، رفــاه و پیشرفت مردم ایــران دچار یک فاشیسم بیـرحم شده اند کـه کشور را بسوی نابودی سوق میدهد.

رژیم ولایت فقیه، برخی از نیروهـای انتظامی اش را درخدمت سرکوب و خفقـان ملت بکارگرفتـه و سعی دارد رابطۀ آنها را با شاخه های بنیادگرا و شورشی منطقه روزبروز محکم ترسازد.

حکومت به مصالح ملی و آسایش مردم کوچکترین توجهی ندارد و با اتکا به یک مافیای غارتگرا، در لوای دین، ثروت خداداد ما را به فراسوی مرزهایمان به غیرایرانی بخشیده.

هم میهنان عزیزم،

راهی که رژیم ولایت فقیه در پیش گرفتـه، آیندۀ ملت و امنیت و تمامیت ارضی ایـران را در معرض بـزرگترین خطرها قرارداده است، در این دوران بحرانی ضرورت استقرارحکومتی که برپایــۀ ارادۀ ملت باشد بسیار حیاتی است و قبل از آنکه این حکومت ضد مردم همه چیز را برسرکشور و مردم آن خراب کند، باید برای نجات کشور شتافت.

اکنون جای بسی خشنودی است که معتقدان به آرمان های مشروطیت، متعهد به دموکـراسی، استقـلال و پیشرفت کشور، برای تجدیـد حیات اهــداف عالــی مشروطیت بیش از هــر زمان دیگر همفکـــر و همــراه شده انـد و این همفکری ها و همکاری ها، بخصوص در داخل کشور بسیار نوید بخش است.

به هم میهنان عزیزم اطمینان میدهـم که اتحـاد و همبستگــی نیروهــای ملی و آزادیخــواه روزبروز تجلی بیشتر و بهتری پیدا میکند. با اتکـا به فرهنگ اصیل ایرانــی سرانجام زنجیرهای استبداد را پاره خواهیم کرد و ملت ایران خواهد توانست، در پرتو آزادی و امنیت، در راه سعادت، ترقی و سربلندی گام بردارد.

خداوند نگهدار ایران باد

رضا پهلوی
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group