open Democracy News Analysis - Talking to Iran, Reza Pahlavi - Comments

Not logged in on "Talking to Iran"

Not logged in — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:40:13 +0000

dear reza king of iran please send us your email adress ,we can not connect to you from Iran,your web site is filtered and we have not your email adrees

paayandeh reza shaah II
paayandeh Mihan

Marjan ZKK on "Talking to Iran"

Marjan ZKK — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:00:38 +0000

Dear Alex Shey

Erm. One set of psychopaths doesn't make another any better.

Oh and by the way, I'm part British/German/Iranian.

Does that make me more intelligent?

Alex Shey on "Talking to Iran"

Alex Shey — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:39:39 +0000

OOPS. noticed a small error in my last post.

The answer to the second question would have to be Yes. The question was.

Did you make a Big mistake in 1979 (So big that you are truely sorry and wish to correct your mistake) ?

Keep Smiling and stop the hating.

Alex

Alex Shey on "Talking to Iran"

Alex Shey — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:28:01 +0000

Democracy in Iran makes no sense. People are far too stupid at best, naive at worst. Take comment 165 by Marjan. She's asking for an apology, from a person, reza pahlavi, who could not have had any involvement with the decisions of any previous iranian government. To ask for an expression of remorse or sorrow for actions that were never taken part in is a testimony to this persons wisdom, or lack there of.

Secondly, regarding peoples naivete. Human Rights abuses were a tool used to tarnish the late shahs image and were by any account highly exaggerated. Few experts dispute that the shahs persona was one that was extremely averse to cruelty or executions. Over a 25 year period there were less than 350 executions, and many for drug smuggling. This number is less than the offical number for the USA durng the same period. And far less than the 200 executions a year going on in iran today, most of whom are just teenagers. The ridiculous number of alleged executions during the shahs reign were only put out by the main liberal media to justify their removal of the shah.

If you truely believe that Iranians are capable of living in a democracy then I am sure you would agree with me that they would have to at a minimum be able answer these 2 yes/no questions with a clear and resolute NO.

Are you better off now? Did you make a Big mistake in 1979 (So big that you are truely sorry and wish to correct your mistake) ?

And that is the basis for my hypothesis, since people can not answer simple questions like these, how can you expect them to democratically resolve anything? Democracy can't work if people are so deranged they just go off in one direction for ever and ever.

My humble opinion... Iranians are so lost and clueless they need the clerics to run their every day lives.

Spread the Love,

Alex

steve_info on "Talking to Iran"

steve_info — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:47:50 +0000

I think Reza Pahlavi made some good arguments and pointed out some possible pitfalls. However, dialog is the first step to having any amount of influence. As Baker stated, if nothing else, it will show how inflexible Tehran is. Right now, the lack of dialog is showing how inflexible the US is. We had the opportunity to negotiate form strength, we have lost that. However, it does not mean we have to have our hat in hand. We can keep our honor while having dialog if we just say no to bad deals and dirty deals.

Talking is a start. You do not make progress through calling names and stonewalling.

Jessica Reed on "Talking to Iran"

Jessica Reed — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:09:47 +0000

Dear Mohamad,

Please be advised that writing in capital letters is generally a no-no on internet forums, as it is often interpreted as quite agressive. It would be much appreciated if you could turn to "caps lock off" in the future.

Thank you,

Jessica

-oD moderator

MOHAMAD on "Talking to Iran"

MOHAMAD — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:16:43 +0000

PEOPLE WHO WRITE AGAINST MR.PAHLAVI ARE EITHER WORKING FOR ISLAMIC REGIME OR A PUPPET OF OLD SOVIT UNION WHO HAVE NO PLACE IN IRANIAN SOIL.

MOHAMAD on "Talking to Iran"

MOHAMAD — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:08:01 +0000

100% AGREE WITH MR.PAHLAVI

US SHOULD NOT TALK TO TERRORIST REGIME IN TEHRAN THE OUTCOME WOULD BE DISASTER.

RUSSIA AND CHINA MUST KNOW THE IRANAIN PEOPLE WON'T FORGIVE THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPORTING A TERRORIST REGIME IN TEHRAN WHO'S HOLDING HIS OWN PEOPLE HOSTAGE.

MOHAMAD

Marjan ZKK on "Talking to Iran"

Marjan ZKK — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:49:21 +0000

The ultimate social-climbing pleb arriviste, Reza Pahlavi really should excercise some self-censorship and simply shut up, unless he, contrary to his hereditary make-up, has the capacity for a few braincells and apologizes for the atrocities committed under the fake name he and his entire repulsive family carries.

Has he no shame? Wasn�t decades of looting, torturing, maiming enough?

It is only too obvious again, that this bunch of gangsters never actually has or ever will consider the Iranian people.

Please, Reza, shut up or at least apologize.

cseniornyc on "Talking to Iran"

cseniornyc — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:58:58 +0000

As the scion of a former dictator and servant to British and US interests Mr Pahlevi shpuld have the decency and honesty to refrain himself to posts comments on the defense of democracy in Iran. His credibility equals zero.

Cristobal Senior

NYC

Talking to Iran, Reza Pahlavi

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0000

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.

Also in openDemocracy on Iran, its foreign policy and relationship with the United States:

V.K., "'Rogue state' bites back" (30 August 2001)

Mamoudreza Golshanpazhooh, "Listening to Iran" (30 January 2006)

Fred Halliday, "Iran vs the United States – again" (14 February 2006)

Bahram Rajaee, "Iran's nuclear challenge" (14 February 2006)

Kaveh Ehsani, "On the brink: the Great Satan vs the Axis of Evil" (3 May 2006)

Trita Parsi, "The United States's double-vision in Iran" (9 May 2006)

Hazem Saghieh, "Iran's politics: constants and variables" (12 May 2006)

Behrad Nakhai, "Iran, the US, and nuclear plans: pen and sword (18 September 2006)

Hooshang Amirahmadi, "Iran and the international community: roots of perpetual crisis" (24 November 2006)

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.

Average rating

(5 votes)