While I hate to resort to personal ridicule of a serious person, I have this theory that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a serious man. We've all read his ridiculous remarks, so I won't bore readers by regurgitating them. But the more I look at his pictures, the more ridiculous he appears.
Here's just a sampling:
A shame really, because Iranians are not ridiculous people.
They have a long, proud, and serious history. Rather than clutter up the blog with a list going of monarchs going back hundreds of years before Christ, here's a list of the "modern" shahs of Iran (since 1502):
Safavid dynasty, 15021736
* Ismail I, 15021524
* Tahmasp I, 15241576
* Ismail II, 15761578
* Mohammad I Khodabanda, 15781587 or 1588
* Abbas I the Great, 1587 or 1588 -1629
* Safi I, 16291642
* Abbas II, 16421666 or 1667
* Suleiman I (Safi II), 1666 or 16671694
* Husayn, 16941722
* Tahmasp II, 17231732
* Abbas III, 17321736
[edit]
Afsharid dynasty, 17361749
* Nadir Shah, 17361747
* Adil Shah, 17471748
* Ebrahim Afshar, 1748
* Shah Rukh, 17481797, he lost power in 1750 but nominally remained Shah.
[edit]
Zand dynasty, 17501794
* Karim Khan, 17501779
* Abol Fath Khan, 1779
* Ali Murad Khan, 1779
* Mohammad Ali Khan, 1779
* Sadiq Khan, 17791782
* Ali Murad Khan, 17821785
* Jafar Khan, 17851789
* Lotf Ali Khan, 17891794
[edit]
Qajar dynasty, 17961925
* Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, 17961797
* Fath Ali Shah, 17971834
* Mohammad Shah Qajar, 18341848
* Nasser-al-Din Shah, 18481896
* Mozzafar-al-Din Shah, 18961907
* Mohammad Ali Shah, 19071909
* Ahmad Shah Qajar (19091925)
[edit]
Pahlavi dynasty, 19251979
* Reza Shah Pahlavi, 19251941
* Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, 19411979 and his wife Empress Farah Pahlavi, 1938-present
In 1979 a revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini forced Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into exile, and established an Islamic Republic.
The Shia Islamic staters are hanging on, but in terms of Iranian history, they're a small blip.
Not only are they an aberration in Iranian history, they're also an aberration in Shia history. One of the big myths that's been promulgated since Khomeini is that Shia Islam is radical, while Wahhabist Islam (the Saudi variety) is moderate. Historically, this is not true. One of the splits between Shia and Sunni Islam is the belief by the former that the Koran can be interpreted.
In my view, the Shah of Iran was another post-Watergate casualty, and I think it's a shame. There's more and more talk about restoring the Peacock Throne (the Shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, lives near DC). Interesting discussion here. He's willing to return as a constitutional monarch, but not if he is installed by an American military coup, even though he warns time is running out because of nuclear developments. Although these reports should be accorded skepticism there's also an interesting discussion here, which reveals a deep historical distrust of the United States. It's a Catch-22.
Ironically, Iran's nuclear program is what strengthens the mullahs and stands squarely in the way of a resurgence in genuine Iranian nationalism. The West simply cannot sit by and tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet any military intervention will trigger reactive nationalism in the mullahs' favor.
I wish the proud Iranians could laugh them out of power.
posted by Eric on 05.04.06 at 10:02 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3568
Comments
3rd row from the top, middle picture.
Is he not doing "Blue Steel"? And I swear Zoolander patented that. Just add that to his list of provocations:
1. Want to wipe Israel off the map.
2. Trying to get nukes.
3. Blue Steel.
The Shah's problem was that he wanted a 'European' modernization of Iran instead of an 'Iranian' one. He cozied up too much to foreign businesses and neglected his subjects. The Ulama had been growing in political power for decades, and when he turned in the Islamic calendar for a Pagan one and proclaimed himself the "Shah of Shahs" (an unfortunate choice of titles since it seemed to fulfill prophecy warning against such a person) it helped the Shi'i nationalists rally the leftists with them to get rid of the Shah.
Personally, I think the current political system in Iran isn't bad. They have universal suffrage and a good system of checks and balances. The Ayatollah and the Council of Experts haven't done much of anything in the last couple decades.
And when finals are over next week I will have forgotten all of that.
I was just going to post that Ahmadinejad looks like Balka from Perfect Strangers. However, I read Adam's post.
Wow. I'm almost tempted to make a joke about how Adam's college must be, well, liberal (one reason I'm not making any such joke is that I can't see how to make it funny). A system that isn't that bad? A system of checks and balances?
Homosexuals are tortured before death. The economy has languished or even given ground for over twenty years. The people have no fundamental rights, and while there may be, in theory, a system of checks and balances, all military and social issues are determined by the religious authority, while all business issues are determined by the people in charge of making the oil flow. Crony capitalism wedded to theocracy, hatred, violence and war-mongering. A reality for Iran; mere Democrat propaganda for America.
Honestly, it is truly incredible that anyone could say anything positive of such a system.
Jon Thompson · May 5, 2006 02:10 AM
I've been wondering what happened to Yakof Smirnov.
Well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I provided twenty pictures. According to my calculations, the above is the equivalent of a 20,000 word post! (And that's without triggering or escalation of Blogger Burnout symptoms.)
3rd row from the top, middle picture.
Is he not doing "Blue Steel"? And I swear Zoolander patented that. Just add that to his list of provocations:
1. Want to wipe Israel off the map.
2. Trying to get nukes.
3. Blue Steel.