I read your long letter to RP, “The Dialogue RP Could Not Enter:”
http://www.iranpoliticsclub.net/politic ... /index.htm
There were points in there with which I agree, and others of which I am critical. But before I delineate them, let me first clarify my own position with regards to the man. I am neither a supporter nor a critic of RP. I am quite neutral towards him overall. The reason for my ambivalence towards RP will become more apparent as you read this further. So my post here is certainly not meant as a defense for RP, but rather as an analysis of your letter.
Arguments Against Ahreeman’s Letter:
1. Expectations.
You had the expectation that he ought to rise and through more determined activity help free Iran. Why do you have this expectation of him? Who is he to bring about the sort of change you demand of him? Why do you demand such a high standard from him, and not from me, or any other person? I think it is this expectation that has caused you to be so disillusioned with him. So I ask, why have this expectation? The reason I believe that you have such an expectation is one that may surprise you. Like it or not, it is because perhaps unknowingly you are thinking like a monarchist - did that make you gasp?
You are holding him to the standard of his dynasty, brief though it was. You compare him to his father and especially to his grandfather, and you are utterly disappointed at his shortcomings. But ask yourself, why should he be compared to those other Pahlavis? As you and I know, each progeny is quite different than his or her predecessor, and should not have any special rights or privileges simply because of birth. This is, as you and I believe, one of the main fallacies of a monarchial system. One ought not be given special powers and privileges solely based on one’s lineage. But the converse must also be upheld. One cannot be held to the standard of one’s ancestors and blamed for falling short solely based upon one’s lineage. Each person must be judged based upon his own merits, with no prejudices because of his name.
What does RP owe to Iran? What does Iran owe to RP? The answer to both of these questions is zero. If he chooses to live his life in exile and relative obscurity, then that is his perfect right. If he wishes to criticize the regime, that is also his right, and I say let him do it. He is not doing any harm (that I am aware of), and I welcome any voice that speaks out against this regime. But of course, if that is all he does, then he must also know in his heart of hearts that he will not secure a political position for himself in the future Iran.
2. Indirectly you are holding him accountable for his father’s mistakes.
I believe it is unfair to pose the Shah’s errors and ask RP to justify them, or even to pose them to him under a hypothetical situation of what he would have done if he were in his father’s position or what he would do if he found himself in a similar situation. My parents have made mistakes during their lives; as I’m sure yours have as well. I would not venture to answer for them, nor would I require others to answer for their parents. This again is an error derived from a monarchial mentality: to link him to his father, whether that link yields hereditary title, or whether that link yields him answerable for his father’s errors.
3. Your criticism for his not supporting a coup in 1984.
My own knowledge is limited on this matter to what documents you say exist that show a certain general’s plan for a coup and RP’s denial of support. Without further evidence, one can neither condone nor condemn RP’s decision to not act. Perhaps it was a brilliant plan, with a high chance of success, in which case RP’s decision was flawed. Or perhaps it was an ill devised plan, with a low chance of success. If the latter is the case, we cannot condemn him for not acting, and perhaps by not acting he did more good. If he had acted and failed, consider the lives of all the good people that would have been lost for nothing. Maybe you think that it’s better to fight and die, even in the face of failure, but I do not. If a reasonable chance of success is not inherent in a plan, it is better to forego it and not sacrifice good lives unnecessarily.
I certainly do not claim to know one way or another regarding the legitimacy of the plan, but I am just presenting one possible part of the argument. Perhaps he was a coward that froze like a deer caught in headlights. Or perhaps he did not want to unnecessarily risk lives for a plan that he believed would have failed.
Arguments For Ahreeman’s Letter:
1. What entitlement does he have to Iran when it is finally freed?
The answer is none. As he has done nothing of significance for Iran other than yap with some reporters on CNN and FOX, he is not entitled to any of the fruits that the Iranian people will ultimately reap by having paid for it with blood and sweat. This is why I am no supporter of RP. To me, he is just another guy, another voice in a sea of voices. Those that wish to grant him special privilege or special accountability because of his lineage only delude themselves with illogical monarchial principles.
Having said that, it is never too late for a person to make a greater difference. If he shapes up, does more for Iran, and brings in fresh ideas and leadership, I would be willing to support him. Until then, he is just Reza, another Iranian in exile. If he has any intelligence (and I believe he does), he must know this in his heart. He doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of attaining a significant political career in the future Iran.
2. We certainly don’t need him as a figurehead monarch in the future.
What purpose does that serve? It doesn't make sense to have a king without any real power – ie constitutional monarchy. For what purpose? To act as an ornament, or decoration for the nation? It is a leeching position, to be a pampered king without acting as the political head of a nation. In that respect, he ought to give up any fantasy to that effect, because it ain’t gonna happen. The only role that he should even aspire to have would be as an elected official / administrator in the future government of Iran. If he manages to get elected for a position, let it be for his skill, ideas, and effort; not for his name. Given the history of affairs, however, I doubt that he will have a realistic chance of winning an election in a truly democratic Iran. His name will attract some voters, but his name will also alienate far more voters.
3. The company he keeps.
I am not privy to the company he keeps. However, assuming that you have correct information and he keeps a bunch of yes men around him, then your suggestion to clean house is a good one. I know for a fact that his father was guilty of keeping around him useless yes men that helped bring about his downfall. If the son has followed that tradition of the father, then he will have a similar doom – assuming he ever amounts to anything.
4. Religiosity.
I was not aware of the whole Seyed thing, but again I defer to you about the correctness of that information. I have, however, been aware of his religiosity for some time. Namely, I took great notice of the words “God Bless Iran” at the end of almost all of his written messages.
Is he imitating all the hick American politicians that always attach “May God Bless America” to their speeches?
What did God ever do for America?
What did God ever do for Iran?
But what are you going to do; religious simpletons will always be religious simpletons, right? I’ve always wondered whether politicians say those words only to appeal to the majority of their constituency, which happen to be religious simpletons, or whether they sincerely mean it.
Similar to you, I also wondered whether RP said such things to appeal to the religiously ignorant Iranian simpletons, or whether he was being sincere. Whichever happens to be the answer, the ramification for such a person is disappointing. If he really calls upon an invisible cloud-dwelling Superman to bless and protect Iran, then he is a moron. If he does not believe that, but only says it to be popular, then his ethical fabric is questionable.
I do not mean to say that any political leader that believes in a God is a moron (although he probably is), but that any leader that brings God into the affairs of the nation is an absolute moron.
You hit the nail on the head when you offered the explanation of why otherwise intelligent individuals end up as irrational theists. It is the early mental molding that a child’s caregiver imprints upon him that can potentially forever scar that child. If you recall, I had some words to the same effect in the Russell thread:
Russell on Kant:
“He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psycho-analysts so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.”
Followed by my comments:
“The fourth argument, that of the moral argument, was introduced by Kant. Which takes us on a side note. Many intelligent and often logical individuals take the side of defending and upholding religion, though this has been more true in the past than in the present. Why is that?
I have for long believed that it is because of the environment to which they were exposed, especially in the early years. Religion and belief in God was imprinted upon them at a very plastic age, a time when belief systems are etched onto the impressionable youth as a tattoo upon the skin. That youth may mature into a functional, intelligent, and otherwise logical adult. However, it will be very difficult to remove this early belief system, as it has found a permanent home within that person’s brain. Belief systems are very important to people, and to shake and disprove them can be close to impossible, or at least extremely distressing. It can be done, but with great effort and pain, similar to a tattoo removal.
The later in life this is attempted, the less likely for it to be successful. That’s because the later in life a person is, the more set in his or her way, the more comfortable he or she is with his or her beliefs, and the more resistant to change he or she will be. That’s why the education and exposure of our youth is so important. Don’t even bother convincing the old, for most of them are beyond help. It is too late for most of them. The youth are what’s important, if ever a more enlightened world is to be conceived, free from religion. The youth are what’s important, if ever a more enlightened Iran is to be conceived, free from Islam.”
I am also aware of the religiosity of the late Shah. The images of him wearing Muslim robes, and of him visiting the Imam Reza shrine are forever carved on my mind. It is an aspect of him that greatly disappoints me, although I try not to dwell too much upon it. Let me tell you what I do dwell on:
As you know, this good king of Iran is buried in the Al Refa’i Mosque in Egypt:
I would like to pay a visit to his burial site some day. I dread the fact that I will have to set foot in an abomination such as a mosque to pay my respects to this patriot and former king of Iran. But if and when I do find myself in that part of the world, I believe that my desire to pay homage to this good man will overpower my disgust at entering the house of the Taazi God of War.