No Shahs!

Against the reinstallation of the Pahlavi Dynasty

Protests against the Shah, c. 1980.

Every time news of monumental importance hits Iran, and the world begins focusing on the country, the descendent of ‘Shah’ Pahlavi goes onto television and suggests himself as the successor heir to Persia. He is invariably seconded in this suggestion by news hosts who refer to him as “Your Highness”. Nothing could be a worse tribute to the people who’ve given their lives, and will continue to give their lives in coming weeks and months for a democratic Iran—so long as the regime remains—than to reinstall the Pahlavi ruling family.

If he—the son—would like to run in future elections as a candidate, he should of course be more than welcome to; I’d look forward to his guaranteed humiliating loss. But it would be the worst insult to the Iranian people to help them finally get rid of one tyrant, only to reinstall the leftovers of the previous tyrant. It would be a cruel, sick joke that would involve committing crimes against humanity.

The new Iran will be democratic. This is what the people have been clamoring for. Out of all the recent protest movements of the last twenty years, how many have called for the Shah to come back? Exactly.

Shah, in Persian, simply means ‘King.’ The Pahlavi dynasty came to power on the throes of military coups during the post-World War I period, during the 1920s, not unsimilar to the coming to power of the Assad dynasty in the 1970s. 

Throughout the 30s, the patriarchal first ‘Shah’ was a great admirer of Adolf Hitler. An infamous photograph of a portrait of the fuhrer, addressed to Pahlavi, can be found on the internet. In fact, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran during the war against German imperialism because of the strong Nazi sympathy within the Pahlavi dynasty’s regime. 

The Pahlavi monarchy naturally became a kind of protectorate and ally of U.S. and British imperialism in the mid-twentieth century. This is who some people want to rule the new Iran? 

Pahlavi makes Ahmad Chalabi, or Juan Guaido, look like Nelson Mandela or Nehru by comparison.

Portion of above-mentioned portrait inscribed to “Reza Shah Pahlavi” from the man himself.

Upon the election of author turned politician Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1950s, as the story goes, Anglo-American imperialism overthrew the Prime Minister which at first backfired and led to Pahlavi’s temporary exile in–unsurprisingly, Rome. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency assured Pahlavi’s return, after giving him bribes, solidifying his rule and triumph over Iranian democracy.

In 1979, and the years leading up to that year, millions of working and agrarian people rose up across the country to demand the Shah be removed from power. This of course led to bloody repressions, similar to what we saw in Bangladesh with the end of the Hasina Dynasty, late last year. Other comparisons that come to mind deal with the Assad Dynasty in Syria, which was barely ended only less than a year ago. This was the authentic Iranian Revolution, which took on more and more of a socialist character, as it developed.

For this reason, the revolution was increasingly hijacked by the clerical elements of Iran who still hold power over Persia. This reactionary and regressive garb engaged in a systematic counter-revolution against the progressive elements of the authentic movement. Taking hold of power, the mullah regime began mandating women be veiled in public, giving birth to their repressive and much-hated morality police.

Yes, there was a revolution in Iran in 1979 led by working people, but there was also a counter-revolution led by the wealthy and opportunistic mullahs who disliked the Shah.

* * *

Ever since the time of Cromwell has the monarchical question been debated, not just by the voice and the pen, but often by the sword and the bullet. We all know what happened in France; we all know what everybody wishes would happen in England; we also remember what happened to the Czar. In fact, when the Bolsheviks decided to end the Romanov Dynasty once and for all they referenced Cromwell’s historic failure to decisively end the English crown during deliberations.

Regardless of one’s view about what should happen to deposed Monarchs–Thomas Paine for instance famously and vigorously opposed the capital punishment of King Louis in France–there’s no doubt that the logic of those who favor capital punishment of former monarchs (unless they forgo any right or claim to rule their former properties) is demonstrated by the fact that the current spokesperson for the Pahlavi Dynasty can’t just retire to private citizenship and go away.

While the pro-Iran Hamasniks protested Donald Trump recently here in the United States, under the banner of “No Kings,” I wonder if any of them realized or have since realized that their misplaced slogan would have been more perfectly suited and adapted for the current situation in Iran? Shah–once again–means ‘King’ in Persian. Therefore, let’s all say together in one resounding and earth-shaking voice, “No Shahs!”