A Tribute to the King

Almost 32 years past today, the Shah of Iran was thrown from power, his majestic 37 years of power suddenly swept into the histories and replaced by the radicalism of the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader of the new Iranian republic. In modern texts and journalism it is popular to treat the Shah's legacy as one of utmost dedication to Western powers and a brutal establishment security force called the SAVAK, yet these arguments sadly fail to address the magnitudes that his rule reached before its succumbing, all which are tremendous when the state's current government is contrasted.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was first installed in the throne in 1941, but his true ascension would not take place until 1953, when American agents helped overthrow a disloyal prime minister to instate him as king. For the next 37 years, Pahlavi ruled in both controversial yet fully effective ways, emphasizing policies which would make Iran a jewel in the Middle East and a strong Euro-American ally before his removal by radical forces in 1979.

Compared to the present Muslim theocracy, the Shah's Iran was a free paradise, albeit one with little political freedom. His policies from the state helped women achieve an equal standing in society, disregarding the calls by the more extreme of his faith to require political suppression through the use of burqas and limited female rights. With the help from his dazzling wife Farah Diba, the Iranian king helped women reach a dramatically higher status than in most surrounding states, easily surpassing the Pan-Arabian tendencies of Egypt and Syria, where females had little to no representation or authority.

Equally importantly, the Shah moved Iran into a rush for economic development that allowed it to greatly modernize universities, business, and general public services. Alongside the largely command or agricultural economies of the non-oil producing nations, this was a tremendous accomplishment which made the Iranians the envy of their neighbors and fostered strong Western interest in the state.

America and Europe would dedicate many resources to Iran's survival, becoming its principal trading partners and crafting the free flow of petroleum supplies in such a manner that would not be seen under the tyranny to follow. Yet the Shah was not hesitant to criticize European interests; in doing so he made himself independent and a true champion for Iran's determination of the future.



Over the past three decades, the nation of Iran has become a wasted and humiliated picture of radicalism and the abuse of human rights, a sad reversal of the policies that the Shah's government backed. As a basic lesson, it shows the danger of allowing fundamentalists to form a national authority when a far better alternative is at hand. Arabic religion has poisoned Iran, and the only means to recover is for another Shah-style leader to turn back the history which as thus far progressed into a new stone age on a federal level.

Iran's current population is predominantly young, so the test of 21st Century policy is to ensure that the government changes and brings in the newer generations, most of whom are naturally liberal and pro-West. American had two attempts, one in 2009 and another in March 2011, but on both occasions the Obama Administration refused to act. So the question remains, will the United States seize the moment, or must Iran continue to suffer without the leadership it deserves?



Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Cultural Issues