Detailed reply to His Royal Lowness by Nagmeh Sohrabi.

A – “How could some people advocate return of the monarchy in the 21st century? How anyone can believe in royalty, believe that someone’s blood is bluer than their own because they have a certain name.” [Sohrabi states she believes the Pahlavi dynasty do not have a long lineage and their family’s past does not look pretty to her. She thinks Reza Shah the Great was a nobody who came to power through a coup d’etat led by himself and the His Imperial Majesty the Shahanshah Ariamehr regained his power through a coup d’etat the Americans led for him.]

Answer – As far as human social behavior is concerned, the only thing the 21st century could be offered would be the experience gained in the 20th century. In the technically advanced countries simple people were manipulated and their uprising resulted in coming to power of the likes of Hitler and Stalin. And in the underdeveloped countries around Iran, coup d’etat after coup d’etat, massacres after massacres, in Iraq and Syria to our west and Afghanistan and Pakistan to our east have all culminated in life long leaderships. The state they are in does not look pretty at all, not to mention the regime of terror of thought and belief in our homeland. That may be why you hear that the bones of the last Russian Tsar was brought back and deposited in the royal cemetery, with full honorary ceremony, after 80 years. The King of the Cambodia went back and resumed his kingship after the killing fields there. The King of Spain returned after civil war and military dictatorship. The King of Afghanistan was the first choice for an interim government there.

As far as blue blood is concerned, no one in their right mind believes that some people have blue blood. Royalty has been the symbol of our culture and its inspirations for over 3000 years. The reason for raising these questions may be the shared images she has been fed by the enemies of the Pahlavi dynasty and by the publicity of the cold war. A coup d’etat means the overthrow of government by the use of force. When in 1299 the then Reza Khan the “mir pange” came to Teheran, there was no change of government and no change in the position of the Shah. He was assigned as the commander of the central brigade, a post which was to bring law and order to the capital. He took the line of promotion through merit, became minister and prime minister under the same Shah and Majlis. Four years later, “Majleseh Moasesan” appointed him as the Shah. This appointment in 1299 was labeled coup D’etat in part to justify the military occupation by foreigners during World War 2. Ms. Sohrabi, no doubt, knowing full well the suffering and starvation we went through during this occupation chooses to just ignore facts and go along with the history the foreigners have cooked up for us.

The belief that the Shahanshah Aryamehr regained his power through the coup d’etat led by the Americans for him is based on CIA publicity as a cold war ploy to cause damage to the self-esteems of Iranian government officials to become subordinate to these same foreigners. The architects of the Islamic Republic to undermine the Pahlavi regime have repeated it. These CIA documents, now available for all to read, state their undercover operations failed and those foreigners involved had prepared to run away. The fear of the general public, the clergy and the army of a massacre, resulted in a choice between an unknown, volatile and dangerous situation and their traditional regime. This fear was warranted. In those days Eastern European, African and Asian and Arab countries communist led coup d’etat resulted in proxy governments for the Soviet. In countries surrounding the USSR like Hungary and Iran Soviet tanks had rolled in to strengthen the communist position. (In Iran's case it this happened less than a decade earlier).

B –“How is it that he (His Majesty) thinks that his country was doing well but a catastrophe descended and reversed decades of progress despite the fact that more has been done to create a civil society after the revolution, a POPULAR uprising.”

Answer – His Majesty, like any sound mind bases his judgment on statistics and economic indicators. Rate of growth of national income at constant prices had reached 14%, the highest rate only reached by Japan. Thousands of new projects were mushrooming around the country. The labor market absorbed about one million foreign laborers. And this is before the 1974 increase of oil prices. After the “fetneh” and “enghelaab” the national income was halved and not only the foreign laborers lost their job but about one million Iranian laborers lost their jobs too. And all we have known since is war and strife.

Calling the revolution a popular uprising shows that the author is not familiar with mass movement and mass hysteria. Many books and papers have been written about this subject. To make a sound judgment they should be read.

With regard to a move toward creation of a civil society it is not clear what the Sohrabi means by civil society. Does the slashing of people for enjoyment of dance and music mean a move towards a civil society? Does terror of thought and belief mean a move toward a civil society? Does a life of lies, cheating, duplicity and pretence mean a move toward a civil society? If by a move toward civil society is meant having free election, does having the choice to elect between the candidates who have been vetted by those who think the sky has a strong ceiling, or the sun moves around the earth mean freedom of election? One should not be mislead by cold war propaganda and the suggestions that democracy is a prerequisite of a civil society. If by a move toward civility is meant having political parties one should know that political parties are based on differing schools of thought. When there is only one school of thought, namely Islamic, what could be meant by different political parties? With regard to the election were 70% are reported to have voted for Mr. Khatami, 70% voted for Bani-Sadr the first president of this Republic. What happened to him and the votes of the 70% who voted for him? Who is to say a mullah's 70% is any more legitimate?

Sohrabi who accuses the Shah of being condescending with regard to the 20 million voters, then goes on to state that she “does not care” whether the Shah can come back to power through a referendum or not! Well so much for Democracy and Ms. Sohrabi’s respect for the views of the majority. The terrifying thought that if there is a referendum, monitored by an international body, that the views of the likes of Ms Sohrabi and the mullahs she presents as civil, would end up in the toilet bowl of history, has even reached the girls in Harvard.

C –“Why people don’t look for alternative to the past?

Answer – A detailed answer to this question is given by social psychologists. In brief, society brings us up in such a manner that we enjoy acting according to what our culture requires of us. Culture is not changeable like clothing. Change in the culture is mainly in the way people act, not in the main principals and taboos. People prefer to continue with the system that is familiar to them. The experience of the 20th century of those who were cheated by the cold war propaganda have taught us a bitter lesson. That is why they look forward to His Majesty’s leadership, aiming at attaining the full requirements of a civil society through Iranian (and NOT Arab) culture. Perhaps Sohrabi would like to suggest a viable alternative, and while we wait for this, we can watch a new generation of Iranians growing up who have seen nothing better than a sect of “mollas” selling off their country to the lowest bidders.

Additionally to item seven from original page: Leadership in a society takes shape through the presentation and execution of ideas regarding common welfare of the people and the credit accumulated through successful social behavior. This credit accumulation appears in the form of respect and is transferred to the next generation to safeguard the stability of the culture.

In our country, a diverse multi-ethnic society of people of many different languages, religions, customs and traditions, our forefathers realized that to coexist harmoniously, the leader (the Shahanshah) has to be above all religious and ethnic leaders. Furthermore, they realized that in the same way that children follow their parents, the society follows its leader. Therefore to create a proper common purpose for the people, they have to present the leader to the diverse followers in distant areas. This is how symbolization of leadership began.

Under normal conditions, culture shapes according to human characteristics such as desire for freedom, equality, respect, safety, secure health and means of living and success in overcoming the natural forces. In this direction, symbolization of leadership (Shahanshah) (aghazadeh) with Ahura’s characteristics has been the result of cumulative thoughts of thousands of the elite of our country during centuries, aiming at creating a society based on truth and justice. However influenced by superstition, a culture can also take up all kinds of bogus beliefs that cannot be verified scientifically.