History of Iranian Flag part 2

History of Iranian Flag

Let this be the symbol of separation of Religion and State in Iran

This is the flag of Iran as it was proudly displayed by our noble forefathers. The Islamic sword that crippled the majestic walk of our lion and impeded his advancement for 1400 years has no place in our flag. Shirokhorsheed (Lion and Sun) are the symbols of strength, majesty, splendor and glory. Shamshir (sword) is the symbol of war and violence. Our nation does no more subscribe to violence. Our flag should represent who we are. And we are a free people, self assured, glorious and majestic. We walk proudly like a lion and shine like the Sun illuminating the entire world with our rich culture, our humanistic values and our genius. The Lion with the Sun is our national symbol as it has always been, but the sword is the symbol of Islam. The Shirokhorsheed without the sword represents our desire to separate religion from the state. Whether you are a Muslim or not, If you agree with this separation this should be the sign on our flag. Please copy it, display it in your site and promote it. (Thanks to Ostaad Nasser Engheta for his research on our flag and HamMihan for graciously accepting my request to take out the sword)

The following is an extract from Naser Engheta's book:

شيروخورشيد

يادداشتی ديگر بر تاريخچه ی پرچم ايران

پرچم نماد تاريخ کشور و افتخارات ملت است. هنگام پايداری در برابر يورش بيگانه، هرکجا که فرمانده مستقر ميشده، در آن اردوگاه پرچم آن ملت و سرزمين برافراشته ميشد. اهتزاز پرچم موجب تقويت روحيه و واژگونی آن موجب تزلزل سربازان ميشد. نحوه انتخاب علامت پرچم به باورهای تاريخی و علاقه ی مردم به سرزمين خود ارتباط دارد

اولين پرچم

اسناد فرهنگی و تاريخی فراوان حاکی از اهميت پرچم نزد ايرانيان است

کتاب فروردين يشت بند بيست وهفت: فرورهای نيک توانای پاکان را ميستاييم که لشگر بيشمار بيارايند. سلاح به کمر بسته با درفش های برافراشته درخشان.شاهنامه ی فردوسی: فرو هشت از سرخ و زرد و بنفش ... همی خواندنش کاويانی درفشويتنی اسميت در کتاب پرچمها مينويسد: شايد قديم ترين پرچمی که هنوز وجود دارد پرچم فلزی متعلق به ايران است که قدمت پنج هزارساله دارد. نقش شير در طرح آن مشاهده ميشود.شرح حرکت سپاه ايران برای نبرد با اسکندر در تاريخ چنين آمده: عادتی است نزد پارسی ها که پس از طلوع آفتاب و آنگاه که روشنايی روز همه جا را فرا گرفت شيپورچی ها شيپور حرکت را از بارگاه شاه می دمند. بالای اين بارگاه صورت آفتاب را درقاب بلورين بقدری بلند نصب کرده بودند که همه می توانستند آن را مشاهده کنند.
خورشيدپور داوود از خورشيد يشت می آورد: خورشيد جاودانی را می ستاييم و با هوم آميخته به شير با برسم با زبان خرد با انديشه و گفتارو کردار.ابوريحان بيرونی در کتاب آثارالباقيه مينويسد: پادشاهان در هنگام جشن مهرگان تاجی بشکل خورشيد که در آن دايره ای مانند چرخ قرار داشت بسر می گذاشتند.آمين مارسلن مينويسد: يکی ازعنوانهای شاهان اشکانی: برادر آفتاب بوده است

شير

در نقش های سنگتراشی و ظروف بدست آمده از کاوشهای باستان شناسی پيکر شير ديده ميشود:کاسه زرين که در سال هزاروسيصدوسی و هفت در تپه حسنلو بدست آمد. قطعه سنگ ناحيه نمرودداغ که اکنون در موزه برلن نگهداری ميشود. تخت جمشيد و غلبه شير به نشانه ايران بر گاو نشان بابل. موزه لوور تنديسی از شيری نشسته که نيم حلقه ای مانند خورشيد بر پشت دارد. پيکره معروف سنگ شيرهمدان از دوره اشکانی.

در دوره محمدشاه شمشير ذوالفقار را به چنگ شير سپردند. صبوری در قصيده ای هنگاميکه ناصرالدين شاه شمشيری را برای مويدالدوله فرستاده بود می سرايد

چون نشان شاه ما خورشيد و شمشير است و شير ... داده شمشيری بدست شيرخود خورشيدوار ستاره شناسان معتقد بودند خانه خورشيد برج اسد شير است که هرگاه آفتاب در خانه شير قرار گيرد نيرومند و با شوکت خواهد بود. در کاشيکاری های خراسان به سال ششصد وشصت و پنج هجری نقش شير با خورشيد ديده می شود

رنگ و اندازه پرچم

تا پيش از مشروطه سه رنگ سبزوسفيد و سرخ در پرچم ها بطور نامرتب بکار می رفته. پرچم مظفرالدين شاه قاجار پارچه سفيدی بود که از سه طرف حاشيه سبز و سرخ داشت و در وسط آن علامت شيروخورشيد بود. بموجب اصل پنجم متمم قانون اساسی ترتيب قرار گرفتن رنگها معلوم شد: الوان رسمی بيرق ايران سبزوسفيدوسرخ و علامت شيروخورشيد است

درزمان اعليحضرت رضاشاه بزرگ سرود درفش کاويانی سرود رسمی پيش آهنگی شد

ای درفش ظفربخش کاويان . ـ . مايه افتخار کشور کيان

رايت نصرت و آيت شکوه ما . ـ . پيش آهنگان با عزم وهمت ايران جوان

مملکت ز سبزيت سبزوخرم است . ـ . وز سپيديت سپيد ساحت جم است

سرخيت نشانه ای ز خون گرم ما . ـ . پشت ملک و ملت از شيروخورشيد تو گرم و محکم است

پرچم نظامی دارای تاج پهلوی و يک دايره برگ است که در قسمت بالا باز و درپايين گره زده شده بود. شيروخورشيد با تاج مختص نامه های رسمی و مقامات دولتی ميباشد.نسبت عرض به طول پرچم، چهار به هفت در شکل مستطيل است. از زمان پهلوی دوم، موسسات غيردولتی در مواقع لزوم از پرچم شيروخورشيددار استفاده ميکردند

پرچم سلطنتی

درفش شاهنشاهی ايران به شکل مربع از پارچه ابريشمی به رنگ آبی آسمانی و در ميانه آن نشان سلطنتی بود. زير نشان به روی نواری بنفش رنگ نوشته شده:

مرا داد فرمود و خود داور است

دراثری منسوب به محمدحسين ساسان نيا به مناسبت نصب پرچم در دانشکده افسری چنين آمده

به ديدارت ای پرچم کاويانی... شود جان و دل غرقه در شادمانی
چه داری که از هر نگاه تو خيزد... ز دل شور جانبازی و جانفشانی
مرا ديده تا بر تو افتد شود نو... کهن آنهمه شوکت باستانی
همه آن جلال و غرور و بزرگی... کهن آنهمه شوکت باستانی
بياد آيد آن روزگار همايون... که بر يکجهان داشتی سايبانی
بناز ای فره يادگار نياکان... ببال ای بزرگ آيت پهلوانی
که چون تو متاعی به گيتی نباشد... به فر و شکوه و به قدر و گرانی
چه زبده جوانان ميهن به راهت... گذشتند يکسر ز جان و جوانی
چه شبها که تا صبح يکدم نخفتند... دليران برای تو در پاسبانی
چه آزادمردان که مردانه از شوق... بپايت فشاندند جان رايگانی
اميد آنکه بينم بپای تو دشمن... زده زانوی لابه و ناتوانی
اميد آنکه همواره باشد بر اين بوم... تو را سايه سروری جاودانی

ملت نه امت و خلق

ضحاک کيشان پس از فاجعه موسوم به انقلاب به قصد محو هويت ايرانی به دستور سيد هندی نشان شيروخورشيد ملت را از پرچم برداشتند و علامت خنجر سيکهای هند را جانشين ساختند. ايرانيان آزاده ميدانند که آنچه امروز بر ايران ميگذرد تاريخ به همه ايرانيان نسبت خواهد داد. ايرانی ميهن پرست در گردهم آيی های سياسی با دردست داشتن پرچم شيروخورشيد نشان ميهن مان به جهانيان خواهد گفت که ايرانی مي خواهد ايرانی بماند. با اهتزاز پرچم تاريخی به جهانيان مي فهماند که ملت ايران، امت اسلامی نيست و ملت ايران، خلق مارکسيست نخواهد شد

منابع

تاريخ پرچم ايران: بختورتاش

تاريخ بيرق: نيرنوری

لغتنامه دهخدا

نشانها: ارنست لينر

پرچمها: ويتنی اسميت

More on the History of Iranian Flag

تاريخ فشرده درفش سه رنگ و شير و خورشيد

از دوران های پيش از زايش « ميترای آدمی روی » اين باور درميان آريائيان ( ايرانيان) روا ميبوده که سر انجام رهائی دهنده ای خواهد آمد و به اين باور ميبوده اند که خوار و بار و بهروزی وفراوانی به گونهٍ گاو فربهی است که در درون غاری جای دارد و هنگاميکه ميترا زاده شد گفتند که او همان رهائِی بخشی است که ما چشم براهش بوديم. و هم اوست که بايد گاو را بکشد. ايرانيان شير را نماد نيرومندی و مردانگی و سروری ميپنداشتند.
برگه ها ئی که در کاوش های باستانشناسی بدست آمده نشان ميدهد که پيوند تنگاتنگی ميان پيکره "شير" و "ميترا" وجود دارد. نقشی که در زير پله های کاخ آپادانا در تخت جمشيد ميبينيم (شيری گاوی را می درد) اين گمان را استوار تر ميکند. در برگه های بدست آمده در اروپا (آئين ميترا تا بدانجا رسوخ کرده بود) ميبينيم که "ميترا" که گاه زاده سنگ گاه زاده خورشيد، گاه زاده و همتای «آناهيتا» خوانده ميشود در غاری گاوی را ميکشد. در آوند ها، سنگ نبشته ها، برگه ها، کاسه ها وبشقاب های ايران کهن نمونه هائی از شير که گاوی را ميکشد نمودار است.
در درازای تاريخ به برگه های استواری بر ميخوريم که پدران ما «خورشيد» را بر تر از ديگر «خدای گونه» ها بر شمرده و آنرا نشانه بی مرگی، بر تری و نيرو مندی ميدانستند. همچنين ميدانيم که "ميترا" يا ايزد مهـــر را خدای روشنائی و نيرومندی ميانگاشته اند و خورشيد را نماد و سمبول او ميشمردند و بر آن بودند که خورشيد با گوش و چشم سراسر گيتی را در زير نگرش خويش دارد. به همين انگيزه به خورشيد "مهر" هم گفته ميشود که نام ديگر ميترا است. (چگونه است که اسلام و آئين های ديگر اين باور ها را به نفع خود تغيير داده اند)
در ادبيات "مزد يسنا، يشت ها" زرتشت همبستگی ميان ميترا و (خورشيد) را پذيرفته و ميگويد: خورشيد نشانه پادشاهی و چيرگی ايران بوده است. در بالای چادر شاهان چهره خورشيد که از بلور ساخته شده بود ميافراشتند. گمان کرده اند که ايرانيان خورشيد پرستند ولی در باور ايرانيان « شـــيـــد » (نور) است که بزرگترين آفريننده همه چيز است و خورشيد تنها باز تابی از اهورا مزدا (خدا) است

هخامنشيان و درفش

زنجيره شاهان آريانی بر امپراتوری ايران بزرگ فرمان راندند. سواران پيشاپيش ميرتاختند و سپس بار و بنه و سپس پيادگان می آمدند. کورش در پيش سواران ميرفت. هر دسته از شپاه پرچمی داشت. پرچم کورش عبارت بود از پيکره شهابی (عقابی) با بالهای باز که بر روی نيزه ای بلند نصب کرده اند. نشان از اين است که بر روی پارچه ای نقش نبسته است. شهباز نشان توانمندی و بلند پروازی و تيز بينی بوده و در بيشتر برگه ها و سنگ نبشته ها ديده ميشود. درفش کاويان آنان آْنگونه که از برگه ها بر ميايد مستطيل بوده که بر چهار سه گوشه تقسيم شده بود.

ساسانيان و درفش
ساسانيان به پرچم خود درفش کاويان ميگفتند که از يک تکه چرم چهار گوش که بر بالای نيزه ای استوار شده بود که نوک نيزه از پشت آن پيدا بود. روی چرم را ديبا کشيده بودندو گوهر کاره شده بود و نقش ستاره ای چهار پر در ميان آن بود که فردوسی آنرا «اختر کاويانی » ميگويد. درفش ساسانيان همان درفش کاويان فريدون بود منتها بزرگتر و در پائين درفش چهار رشته نوار به رنگ های سرخ، زرد و بنفش آويخته بود که نوک رشته ها را گوهر نشان کرده بودند. اين همان رنگ هائی است که در شاهنامه آمده است

هجوم تازيان
در نبردی که ميان تازيان و ايرانيان در نزديکی نهاوند رخ داد سپاه ايران شکست خورد و تازيان به درفش کاويان ساسانيان دست يافتند و به همراه فرش بهارستان نزد عمر فرزند خطاب بردند که از گوهر های بسيار پرچم شگفت زده شد و دستور دار فرش را تکه کردند و پرچم را سوزاندن و گهر های آنرا تقسيم نمود.
پس از هجوم تازيان به ايران که نمايش نقش تنديس بر گرده شير که نمادی از خدا ميبوده با اسلام هم آهنگی نداشته را برداشتند و بجای تنديس ميترا فقط نماد خورشيد بر پشت شير سوار کردند و نشان شير و خورشيد از آن هنگام بدون تنديس ميترا نمايان شد.
(به برگه و نگاره های اين صفحه نگاه کنيد ) www.sanibrite.ca/iran/flaghistory.asp ( .

صفويه و پرچم
تا زمان صفويه نقش شير و خورشيد در تمامی پرچم های ايران بوده است. شير و خورشيد يک نماد ملی بوده و با دگرگون شدن پادشاهان اين نشان ملی دگرگون نميشده. تنها شاه اسماعيل و شاه تهماست بر روی پرچم خود نشان شير و خورشيد نداشتند. پرچم شاه اسماعيل يکسره سبز و بر بالای آن نقش ماه ميبوده است. شاه تهماسب که در ماه (حمل) گوسپند بدنيا آمده نقش گوسپند را در روی پرچم نقش کرد. در زمان صفويه آيات قران و کلمات تازی (عربی) بر روی پرچم ظاهر شد.

افشاريه و پرچم
تا زمان نادر شاه افشار پرچم ها در بيشتر موارد نوک تيز است و از همه رنگ ها استفاده شده. نادر شاه اين مرد خودساخته و ميهن پرست که از دل مردم برخاسته و ايران تکه پاره را به زير يک پرچم آورد و تا هندوستان، مرز چين ، خوارزم، موصل، کرکوک، بغداد و دهلی را زير پا گذاشت و تا آن زمان که پرچم يک رنگ بود (سبز يا سرخ يا سياه) دارای سه رنگ سبز و سپيد و سرخ با هم شد. درفش شاهی نادر سرخ و زرد و دارای نقش شير ميبوده. پرچم در زمان نادر چهار گوش است. بنا بر اين پرچم مستطيل و سه رنگ نادر مادر پرچم سه رنگ ايران است که نقش شير و خورشيد بر آن نشسته ولی هنوز شير شمشيری در دست ندارد.

شمشير و قاجار ها
در هيچيک از نگاره ها، سکه ها، نوشته ها، سنگ نبشته هاو قاليچه های ايرانی تا زمان قاجار نقشی از شمشير ديده نميشود وهنوز شير و خورشيد تنها نماد ملی ايران باقی ميماند.
آقا محمد خان قاجار با تمام کينه ای که با افشاری ها داشت از سه رنگ تنها سبز را از پرچم برداشت و سرخ را رها نمود ولی در ميان آن دايره سپيدی را نگاه داشت و هنوز شير و خورشيد را که از پيشينيان رسيده از ميان نبرد. گرچه شاهان و اميران همديگر و قبيله ها را از بين ميبرند ولی شير و خورشيد که نماد ملی است بر جای ميماند.
چون آقا محمد خان بشدت مذهبی بود وبعضی پرچمهای صفويان شير و خورشيد و برخی شمشير دو سر علی را نقش کرده بود را در هم آميخت و شمشير بدست شير داد. شمشير نماد نيرومندی و نشان مردانگی و توانمندی، نيرو و دلاوری ميبوده. نظامی گنجوی ميگويد:
با لشـــــــگر خـــــــود کشـــــيده « شــمشيــــر» افــــتــــاده در آن قــبــيــــلـــــه چـــــون « شـــــــــيــــر»
در زمان فتحعلی شاه دو گونه پرچم ميبوده؛ يکی پرچمی يکسره سرخ رنگ با شيری نشسته (بی شمشـــير) و خورشيد بر پشت آن در ميان پرچم، بالای چوب پرچم دستی از سيم ناب کار گذارده بودند که شايد نمادی از دست امام علی بوده است. اين درفش زمان جنگ بوده است. ديگری درفشی بود يکسره سبز رنگ باز هم شيری نشسته (با شمشير) و خورشيد بر پشت وبر بالای چوب پرچم پيکانی زرين کار گذارده بودند؛ اين پرچم زمان صلح ميبوده. در هر دو پرچم پرتوهای خورشيد سراسر پهنه پرچم را پوشانيده است.
سفير فتحعلی شاه در هنگام ورود به شهر پترو گراد نگاره زيبائی از شير و خورشيد که بر پرچمی يکسره سپيد کشيده شده در جلو حرکت ميداده . با نگرش به پرچم زمان جنگ و صلح و پرچم سپيد زمان دوستی ميتوان انگاشت که در آن زمان سه رنگ پرچم ميبوده سرخ، سبز و سپيد.

تاج ، پرچم و محمد شاه
در زمام محمد شاه قاجار تاج بر بالای نشان شير و خورشيد ظاهر ميشود. سندی از زمان قاجار در دست است که در کتاب «پارس» لوئی دو بو Luis De Beaux نيز به آن اشاره شده:
« پس برای هر دولتی نشانی ترتيب داده اند. دولت عليه ايران را هم نشان «شير و خورشيد» متداول بوده است که قريب سه هزار سال، بل متجاوز، از عهد زرتشت اين علامت بوده. سبب انتشار آن شايد اين باشد که در دين زرتشت، آفتاب را مظهر کل و مربی عالم ميدانستند ...»
سر انجام در يکسد و پنجاه سال پيش دستگاه فرمانروائی ايران ميپذيرد که نشان شير و خورشيد يک نشان فرهنگی، تاريخی و دينی که ريشه در هزاره های کهن ( از زمان زرتشت، بل متجاوز) دارد.

امير کبير و پرچم
امير کبير اين مرد ميهن پرست دستور داد بر روی خرابه های مساجد سرباز خانه ساخته شود، لباس سربازان را يکنواخت و تنها از پارچه بافت ايران استفاده شود وی دستور داد تا دکمه های لباس سربازان نشان شير و خورشيد داشته باشد. اين نشان در روی دکمه لباس ها تا بهمن هزارو سيصدو پنجاه و هفت باقی ماند. با نگرش و دلبستگی که به نادر شاه داشت پرچم های سه گانه زمان فتحعلی شاه را بهانه کرد و دستور داد درفش ايران دارای همان سه رنگ سبز، سپيد و سرخ زمان نادری يکپارچه گردد. همچنين نقش تاج را از بالای نشان شير و خورشيد برداشت ولی در شمشير و شکل پرچم (مستطيل) دگر گونی بوجود نياورد.

شکل درفش
در سال هزارو دويست و هشتادو چهار خورشيدی برابر با هزارو نه سد و شش پارسائی که جنبش مشروطه را مظفر الدين شاه دستينه نهاد در متمم قانون اساسی شکل درفش به اين صورت آمده است:
«الوان رسمی بيرق ايران، سبز، سفي دو سرخ و علامت شير و خورشيد است» در اين برگه تاريخی از کنار هم قرار گرفتن و اندازه رنگ ها و پهنای درفش سخن بميان نيامده.
در مجلس يکم شماری روحانی بودند که به پيروی از دين اسلام نگاشتن نگاره ها را نا روا ميدانستند. گروهی نو انديش که شمارشان بسيار بود برآن شدند که نگذارند نازش های فرهنگ گذشته پايمال شود. از جمله اينان شادروان ارباب کيخسرو و شاهرخ نماينده زرتشتيان بودند. با رايزنی برنامه ای حساب شده ريختند و در جلسه مجلس پس از سر آغازی شيوا گفتند:
« همه ميدانيم که نود در سد ايرانيان مسلمانند. و رنگ سبز رنگ دلخواه پيامبر اسلام و رنگ دين است. پس بر بالای پرچم جای گيرد.
زرتشتيان هزاران سال پشت اندر پشت در اين سرزمين زاده و زندگی کرده اند در قرآن نيز اشاره ای به اين دين شده. رنگ سپيد که رنگ ويژه کيش زرتشتی است و همچنين رنگ آشتی و پاکدلی است بپاس بزگداشت اين مردم آزاده در زير رنگ سبز جايگزين کنيم.
به پاس خون شهيدان راه انديشه و باور بويژه فرزند علی و انقلاب مشروطه رنگ سرخ را در آن جای دهيم.
هنگاميکه مجلس کاملا آماده شده سخن به نشان شير خورشيد ميکشد و گفته ميشود. انقلاب مشروطه در امرداد به پيروزی رسيد، ماه امرداد در برج اسد (شير) جای دارد، از سوی ديگر چون بيشتر مسلمانان ايرانی "شيعه" و پيرو علی هستند و شير همچنين پيشنامی از نام های علی است و او را "اسد الله" می خوانند بر اين پايه شير را هم که نشانه امرداد و هم نشانه پيشوای يکم است بيادگار به پرچم نقش کنيم.
چون مشروطيت در ميانه امرداد به پيروزی رسيد و خورشيد در اين روز در اوج نيرو مندی و گرمای خود است پيشنهاد ميکنيم خورشيد را نيز بر پشت شير سوار کنيم که هم نشانه علی باشد هم نشانه امرداد و هم ياد آور روز چهاردهم امرداد وهم نشانه کهن ايرانيان. (نکته در خور توجه اينکه به «ميترا» وارتباط آن با خورشيد و مهر نشده تا مبادا روحانيان درون مجلس بر آشفته شوند.) زمانيکه ديدند زمينه مساعد است و مخالفی نيست گفتند حال که شير را نشانه علی دانستيم بايد " ذوالفقار" را نيز به دستش بدهيم.
نمايندگان دور انديش با شتاب بر اساس اصل پنجم متمم قانون اساسی پيشنهاد و به تصويب رساندند. در اين برگه تاريخی اشاره ای به تاج در بالای شير و خورشيد نشده است.

خمينی و نشان ملی
هنوز يکی دو سه ماه بيشتر از بهمن پنجاه و هفت نگذشته بود که خمينی در يک سخرانی گفت:
« بياندازيد اين شير و خورشيد منحوس (!) را. بياندازيد اين علامت شاهنشاهی را (!!).»
بدنبال اين سخن نا سنجيده عده ای از هواداران چشم و گوش بسته با چکش نادانی بجان آثار باستانی و ساختمان ها افتادند که مهدی بازرگان زيان چشمگير را به او گوشزد کرد ولی با وجود کوشش های فراوان وهشدار ها خمينی با بر بالای بالکن ظاهر شد و گفت:
« اگر از ميان بردن اين علامت منحوس (!) شير و خورشيد، هشتاد ميليون هم ضرر ميزند – که نميزند(!) – مانعی ندارد، آنها را از بين ببريد(!!)»
شگفت اينکه علامه طبا طبائی از روحانيان دلبسته به خمينی در چکامه ای ميگويد:

بــــود کيش من "مهــــر" دلــــدار ها هـــــمی گـــويــــم و گفتــــــــه ام بار ها"

پرستش به مستی است در کيشِ "مهر برونـــــند زيـــــن حـــلقه هشيار هــــا

بهــــيـــن مهـــــر ورزان کــــه آزاده اند بــــــريـــــزند از جـــــام جان بار هــــا

عده ای که نگران نابودی برگه ها و فرهنگ ملی بودند اين علامت را پشت گچ ها و تابلو ها پنهان کردند باشد که روزی ديگر و زمانی ديگر همانگونه که خورشيد از پشت ابر ها بيرون ميآيد شير و خورشيد پنهان شده در پشت گچها و سيمان ها و در دل ميهن پرستان باز هويدا شوند و چشم ايرانيان ملت گرا را نوازش دهند.شير و خورشيد نشانی تاريخی و فرهنگی است و ريشه در باور های ما در هزاره های گذشته دارد و بسی ژرف تر از آن است که ما آنرا به اين و آن نسبت دهيم

ايرانی ميهن پرست اين نشان را به شخص يا قبيله خاصی منسوب نمينما يد

If you could not read above Parsi click here to open the pdf file

در تهيه اين مطلب از کتاب « شير و خورشيد نشان سه هزار ساله» گرد آوری و نوشته ناصر اتقطاع استفاده شده برای . اين کتاب زيبنده هر کتابخانه ای است و داشتن آنرا به هر ايرانی ميهن پرست سفارش مينماييم. برای تهيه آن ميتوانيد باما تماس بگيريد

Ancient Iranians believed that Sun is the center of energy and the lion was the symbol of power and braveness. Mithraism which was the ancient religion of Iranians believed that a man will come to rescue the humanity and will destroy that caw that is the symbol of most commodity. Mithra that was believed to be sun's son is powerful enough that will destroy the caw. therefore in most archeological documents and carving we see an angle or a lion fighting with a caw (Persepolise, Apadana Palace's stairs). Therefore Lion, Sun with portrait of an angle who represents Mithra has been discovered in most ancient archeological items.
first Iranian flag in the time of Hakamenid use to be a Hawk (Shahbaz) with open wings carried in front of the army on top of a tall flag pole.
The famous "Derafsh Kaviani" which was made by and an artisan smith using his apron carried three different ribbons hanging from the bottom in Red, Purple and yellow. Sassanid flags which was decorated by many valuable jewelry was stolen by Arabs when Iranian army was defeated. Arabs burned the flag and used the valuable items.
All time Lion and Sun appeared on the most flags no matter if the defeated dynasty had to be destroyed by the Lion and Sun was transformed from on flag to the other with different color.
During Safavied dynasty who they were religious group who strongly belied in Islam sword appeared on the flag. Sword was Ali''s symbol ( Mohammad's son-in-law. )
During Afshari dynasty, Nadir Shah have created rectangle flag, red, white and green using Lion and Sun as emblem. During Kajar dynasty Fath-Ali-Shah have developed one flag in red with a sitting Lion (no Sword) representing war time, one flag with sitting lion (with sword) on the green surface representing peace time, both lions Sun's reflection covered all surfaces of the flags.
Later Amir Kabir who ordered military compound are build on the places of the Mosques, all solders are worn uniform using Iranian cloth and buttons are decorated with Lion & Son. He combined Red and Green color from Afshari era with addition of White in the middle with Sun & Lion as the symbolic flag.
During Mohamad Shah Kajar House representative recognized Red, White, Green flag with Lion & Sun carrying sword as the national emblem.
Khomeini ordered all Sun & Lion emblems removed from monuments, historic building and governmental stationeries even if it is going to cost arm and leg.
Iranian patriots are waiting for the Sun and Lion to come out from behind this darkness era in the near future.
Whereas, lion (Leo as the astronomical sign) coincides in the hottest period of summer (23 July-22 August) which expels the most energy.
So, the combination of Lion and Sun on our flag is indicative of the power of our Nation.
These signs have remained as our emblem ever since. A compassionate Iranian never relates this emblem to any particular ruler or dynasty

History of Iranian Flag

Present Iranian National Flag

The current and official flag of Iran was designed andadopted on July 29, 1980, after the Iranian Revolutionof 1979. Its emblem is shaped to represent the nameof Allah. The symbol consists of four crescents and asword. The four crescents are meant to stand for theword "Allah." The five parts of the emblem symbolize thefive pillars of Islam. Above the sword (central part) is a "tashdid" (looks a bit like a W). In Arabic writing this is used to double a letter, here it doubles the strength of the sword.The shape of the emblem is chosen to represent atulip, for the memory of the (young) people who diedfor Iran. It is an ancient belief in Iran, dating back to mythology, that if a young soldier dies patriotically, a red tulip will grow on his grave. In recent years it is considered as the symbol of martyrdom.The words of "Allah-O-Akbar" (God is Great) are alsoshown on the center-border of green and red color 22times. According to the constitution of the IslamicRepublic of Iran, number 22 was chosen because theIranian Revolution overthrew the previous regime onthe 22nd of the 11th month of the Iranian calendar.The Iranian calendar is based on Zodiac signs. The year begins in March 21st and the 11th month coincidesexactly with Aquarius. So we have 11 green copies onthe top and 11 red copies on the bottom of the whitestrip.The green represents Islam, the white for peace, andthe red for courage.For many Iranians, this is not the official Iranian flag and they still adhere to the pre-revolutionary flag that pre-dates centuries ago.

Former Iranian National Flag

The Shir-o-Khorshid (Lion and Sun) Iranian flag is thebest-known symbol of Iran in recent centuries. Thelion and sun motif, which is probably a graphicexpression of the astrological configuration of thesun in the sign of Leo, although both celestial andanimal figures independently have a long history inIranian heraldry. The lion and sun emblem is veryancient, and Ferdowsi the epic poet writes that it wasused by Rostam, the legendary national hero. Late inthe nineteenth century an earlier scimitar motif wascombined with the lion and sun and superimposed on atricolor of green, white and red, and, with minormodifications, this remained the official flag untilthe revolution of 1979.It is difficult to get precise historical data regarding the Lion and Sun flag because it dates back centuries. Often is the case that when comparing different available information pertaining to the Lion and Sun flag, you find many inconsistencies.
Although many Iranians see this flag as their historic flag. It too is surrounded with controversy as it has come to be associated with different political figures and groups who raise this same flag. In other words, the Iranian flag is a hotly contested issue. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult for an Iranian who simply wants to wave a flag to show their connection to the land of Iran without being accused of adhering to controversial politics.

Reza Pahlavi's Speech at the World Affairs Council of Delaware

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

I would like to thank the World Affairs Council of Delaware for its kind invitation and warm hospitality.

Tonight, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to express my views and exchange ideas about the current situation in my beloved homeland Iran, focussing in particular on the negative role which the Islamic regime continues to play in both the national life of the Iranian nation as well as in regional politics and international affairs.

Also, as this week marks the 27th anniversary of the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran – an event which is still celebrated annually by the radical leadership in Iran in order to frustrate and antagonize the people and government of the United States – I should like to discuss some ideas as to what can be done to halt and reverse this adverse situation before it becomes an even greater threat to international peace and security.

Hence, it is my hope that I may be able to stimulate this discussion by putting forward an analysis which is less anodyne and more thought provoking.

To achieve this end, it is my intention to start by saying a few words about the Clerical regime’s ongoing nuclear saga and its various menacing policies in the Middle East, before drawing your attention to a number of important domestic issues that have continued to trouble the Iranian people over the course of the past 27 years. I will then conclude by offering my thoughts about the US policy towards Iran – or lack there of – which as it appears, seems more likely to be the case.

Let me start by reminding this distinguished gathering that the recent announcement by North Korea of its defiance of the international community by its successful detonation of a nuclear device is nothing short of the most serious setback for the cause of international security.

It is no exaggeration to suggest that having a rogue state with a reclusive leadership, detached and oblivious to the priorities of its citizenry, in charge of nuclear devices and the means for delivering them to targets thousands of miles away, is simply a frightening prospect.

Under these circumstances, what would no doubt exacerbate matters well beyond any acceptable boundaries, would be the prospect of waking up one morning to hear that a second such state – the fundamentalist regime in Tehran – has also been able to successfully defy the will of the international community by achieving a similar status – irrespective of its continuous assurances that it has at no time, ever, nourished any such ambitions.

This scenario, were it to come true, would in all probability be the final straw breaking the back of any attempt to halt the course of nuclear proliferation – particularly in the highly volatile region of the Middle East.

Already, there are legitimate concerns following an announcement by the IAEA that a multitude of oil rich Arab states – including Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and the United Arab Emirates – were giving serious consideration to “going nuclear”, albeit for peaceful purposes – much like Iran – which very few really believe!

The need for a nuclear free Middle East is more critical than ever before, and nothing must stand in the way of promoting such an outcome with a hope that, over time, even regional states like Pakistan and Israel may also be swayed to follow a path similar to those taken by countries such as South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan who voluntarily dismantled their nuclear weapons for the sake of greater regional and international peace and security.

Clearly, however, such an outcome will remain a distant dream if the fundamentalist regime in Iran is allowed to continue its making a mockery of international institutions such as the IAEA or the UN Security Council, who have questioned its intentions and sought various diplomatic means to dissuade it from pursuing such a path.

The Islamic regime which has never sought to inform the Iranian people of the national security, foreign policy, and economic or environmental consequences of its nuclear program, is faithfully committed to emulating North Korea, expecting that a nuclear deterrent will enable it to blackmail the international community into inaction, while at the same time prolonging its despotic rule, through its policy of sustained internal repression.

Thus, standing up to Iran’s theocratic dictators, which have long witnessed erosion in their domestic support, including that within the religious establishment, is an absolute imperative which must be addressed now and today, before – like North Korea – it is too late. The difference here being that a nuclear-armed Iran, hostile to budding liberal-democratic values in the Middle East, is a much greater security threat than an already isolated North Korea. It is therefore imperative, that after years of fruitless and time wasting negotiations, the Islamic regime be made to pay a price for its continued intransigence.

For additional perspective, I wish now to say a few words about the objectives of the Islamic regime in the Middle East region, something that is a by-product of its policy of militant anti-Americanism which has served as the hallmark of the Clerical regime’s foreign policy ever since the very inception of the Islamist state in 1979.

By extension, this policy of overt hostility has now come to include the State of Israel, whose extermination has been a repeated cry of the current Islamist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ironically, neither Ahmadinejad nor any of his cohorts, particularly in the various paramilitary revolutionary organizations, ever make mention of the intimacy and close collaboration which they had had with the government of Israel, who was widely acknowledged as having been one of the main weapons suppliers for the clerics during the bloody Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Here, I wish to remind this distinguished audience that the advent of Islamist Khomeini in 1979, firmly established Iran as the cradle and bastion of modern day Islamic fundamentalism. Since then, people everywhere when speaking of Iran, have generally associated my homeland with such modern day scourges as the rise of militant Islam and international terrorism.

The terrible hostilities that raged for a month between Hezbollah and Israel, last Summer, underlined a new and undeniable reality concerning the inseparable links that have now come to exist between issues and players in the wider Middle East, and how the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively exploiting regional grievances for promoting its own agenda, using surrogates like Hezbollah and Hamas across the Moslem world.

No matter how you turn the Middle East question, you come back to the all-important question of which is winning – democracy or religious totalitarianism?

Unfortunately, today, it is Hizbullah that can dictate terms to Foad Seniora in Lebanon. It is Hamas that can mobilize people against Abu Mazen in Palestine. It is Dawa, the Mahdi Army, and a host of Sunni groups in Iraq who can mobilize far more support that Nouri Al-Maleki.

Why are the bad guys winning? Why are religious totalitarians full of bravado, while democracy appears to be in retreat? Having expended close to half a trillion dollars and the best military might at the problem, there seems to be no solution in sight!

Some of the West’s best diplomats have been engaged, without making net progress in the Middle East peace process, stopping the rearming of Hizbullah, or thwarting the increased hold of religious militia on Iraqi communities. It is time to recognize that the problem is neither military, nor diplomatic:

First, it has to do with sociology and political psychology in the region. Second, it involves the relationships between religious totalitarians and their regional “Central Banker,” to quote Dr. Rice. No wonder the tools of the State Department and the Pentagon, namely diplomacy and force, have proven mal-adapted to the problem!

The first area explains the problem of democracy and the advantage of these new totalitarians. When a people’s desperate preoccupation is personal security, both physical and economic, the quest for liberty and political participation takes the back seat. They tend to rely on personal relationships within their community, rather than impersonal relations with a distant government. They become fertile soil for the growth of a Hizbullah, Hamas or Dawa that weave themselves into the fibre of the community through personal relationships.

It is someone they know who goes to people’s homes and offers them help with healthcare, education, welfare, security and of course, religious guidance through connections with the Mosque.

It is particularly the displaced and newly urbanized, or those who are barely one or two generations away from their rural or traditional roots and communities, who find relief and membership in a new community – centred around a Mosque – where they can assemble and pray five times a day.It is the second area that shows the vulnerability of the new totalitarian parties which connect chains of Mosques and create a new social fibre to those who have lost the security of traditional societies.These parties are building impressive political assets throughout the region, but their income statement is in chronic deficit. Take Iranian munitions shipments, intelligence, finance and organizational support away and you will see Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Mahdi, Badr and Dawa dry on the vine.

It is the “Central Banker,” the eye of the religious-totalitarian octopus that is vulnerable. However, all while, the U.S. has been fighting its resilient tentacles.

Just this summer, Iran’s main contribution to Hizbullah was not the training, munitions or intelligence on Israeli plans and movements that Iranian Revolutionary Guards relayed from Syrian communications to the Hizbullah. It was the twelve thousand dollars for each family that lost its home – offered by Hizbullah and finance by Iran. In Lebanon, this made Hizbullah shine compared to the US backed government of Mr. Seniora. Ironically in Iran, however, twelve thousand dollars is six hundred times the salary of masses of Iranian workers who had not been paid for months! A very telling tale was that for the scared, hungry and desperate wives and children of workers arrested in demonstrations throughout Iran, it wasn’t the Islamist government that shined, but whoever spoke out against it!

Having said this, I wish to now draw your attention to the domestic picture of Iran, by focusing first on its dire economic situation:

It is a fact that Iran has 1% of the world’s population and 7% of the world’s resources. Furthermore, while the country enjoys abundant energy resources, it is also blessed by a young and educated work force. However, since 1979, my homeland has faced steady economic decline as a consequence of its general mismanagement and the inability for coming to grip with certain recurring economic problems – such as a chronic over-dependency on oil income, an antiquated bureaucracy, an untrusting ‘private sector,’ as well as corruption and inefficient monopolies reserved for the select regime loyalists. Added to this cocktail of ills, is the regime’s reliance of massive subsidies which have brought forth the doubling of the national budget deficit during Mr. Ahmadinejad’s first year in office.

Today, with unemployment and inflation both well over 20%, along with further depreciation in the value of the Iranian currency, despite rising oil revenues, there is general consensus amongst experts that the Iranian economy is in full recession with general demand for goods and services seriously down. The situation is further exacerbated by the regime’s increased militancy with respect to its foreign affairs bringing into question the regimes vision and strategy to turning the economy around.

In the social and political sphere, the regime has displayed no compunction whatsoever in using what ever force has been required for savagely containing a population that has been the primary victim of its ineptitude in every conceivable field.

The regime’s failure in various economic, social, cultural and political issues have led to a situation that over the past 27 years, thousands of freedom loving Iranians have been either imprisoned, tortured, executed at home or exiled and assassinated abroad, simply because of their refusal to submit to what is no more than a vicious ‘Islamist Apartheid’ system that makes mockery out of such notions as democracy or popular sovereignty.

These actions have now brought my homeland to the edge of a new precipice that is already showing signs of open resistance and violence amongst Iran’s much neglected ethnic populations. Here it is important to point out that continued unrest in these areas pose a major threat not just to the stability and the territorial integrity of Iran but for Iran’s neighbors and the region as a whole. There is no exaggeration when one speaks of the Islamic regime’s bloodstained record of total disdain and disregard for human rights and individual liberties of all Iranians, and especially the youth and women of my homeland.

Based on this presentation, I am confident of your agreement that any prospect for peace and stability in the Middle East – be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or throughout the Persian Gulf, can hardly be advance so long as the menace posed by the theocratic dictatorship in Iran remains unaddressed in one form or another.

So, how do we begin addressing a serious issue of this nature that has plagued every single US administration – Democrat or Republican – since 1979?

One thing I can assure you without any hesitation is the fact that this problem will never disappear in face of half baked measures or empty rhetoric!

In my view, it is essential that countries such as the United States or others who are trying to counter fanaticism and extremism under the banner of liberal-democratic values, should, first and foremost, attempt to respond to a number of important philosophical or otherwise searching questions:

For instance, why is secularism under such severe strain in the Middle East? Could their actions in the past have possibly aggravated matters indirectly by having failed to understand or show sensitivity to the kind of social, economic and political pressures confronting their secular counterparts in the region – both past and present? To me, this is an important question that needs to be addressed if only to reaffirm the belief that extremists and fanatics who purport to have the “Almighty “on their side, are nothing but frauds who are incapable of resurrecting either national pride or national self-esteem, let alone overseeing a just society that values notions such as freedom, diversity and inclusiveness.

It thus follows, those secular democrats – either in Iran, or across the Middle East – need to be encouraged and supported, so that they can successfully meet the challenges that are posed by extremists and fundamentalist.

Moreover, in the case of my homeland, it is critically important that an image be conveyed that the United States wants to actually stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the ordinary people of Iran by raising their depleted morale and assuring them that they will never be abandoned or compromised in their struggle for freedom and democracy.

Also, extra attention needs to be given to portray secular democratic leaders, as enlightened, uncompromised and patriotic figures who are risking everything for their homeland and their people.In this regard, lessons learned from Iraq can be usefully employed to avert certain avoidable impediments, by enhancing the notion that US allies are honourable people, who are both popular and well capable of gaining the trust and respect of their own people.

Moreover, it must be reiterated that Iran will never become another Iraq and that any positive change towards democracy will not result in chaos. At the same time it is important to emphasize that Iranians who are urged to stand up against the current dictatorship, are also most concerned that they should not be sold out or compromised.

Hence, any diplomatic engagement with current regime, must also demonstrate sensitivity by taking this factor into consideration, if only to ensure that repeated appeals – such as those made by President Bush to the Iranian people – are neither diluted nor made to look disingenuous.

Therefore, communicating in a meaningful way with the Iranian people, while at the same time projecting the image that the United States wants to support the people of Iran in their quest for democracy and human rights, is a key factor that will continue to require nurturing and attention.

But let me be forthright by affirming that words alone cannot be enough! I must remind this distinguished audience that elements like Hezbollah or Hamas are able to do what they do only because of the type of material support that is provided to them on a regular basis by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I am confident that you will agree that minus, the funds, the arms and the training that has been forwarded to Hezbollah since 1982, the danger posed to the State of Israel would have been minimal at best.

In such a situation, it is hard to imagine how empty handed people are expected to stand up against a determined dictatorship that has total control over the nation’s oil wealth and has never in the past relented from brutally crushing any form of internal dissent?

Let me be clear by pointing out that I am not asking for the US government to respond by either financing or arming the Iranian resistance. However, I am asking that the US should speak with one voice and one voice alone, so that indigenous elements capable of supporting the forces of freedom and human rights may be encouraged to play their role.

In closing, I wish to affirm my belief that one of my homeland’s unique features is the fact that it is the ripest candidate for the promotion of democracy and civil society in the greater Middle East. Hence, what is needed is to continue with the messages of support for our people, while actively looking for practical ways of making those messages actually make a difference on the ground.

Even then, the peaceful path for promoting the change we all seek will no doubt be one for which much sacrifice on the part of ordinary Iranians will still be needed. But, my compatriots and I are ready for this and we will take heart by knowing that we are not alone.

Have no doubt that we are determined to save our country and secure our future by advancing the cause of democracy and progress for our people. Only then, will Iran once again be a solid and reliable partner for the promotion of peace and stability in our region and beyond.

Thank you.

Two Mental Sick ...

Two Mental Sick Man that call themselves "Ayatollah" which translated "indication of God" and their puppet "Ahmadinejad"

Ahmadinejad and Hostage of US's embassy in Tehran

My Majesty... IRAN Missed You...

They revere you in fortune ...
And trample you in defeat ...


Mohammad Reza Shah ascended the throne on September 16, 1941, when he was a few weeks short of his twenty-second birthday (October 26). At the time of the golden jubilee of the Pahlavi dynasty he had ruled for thirty-five years, thus more than doubling the period during which his father directed Iran's policies as head of state. Basically, Mohammad Reza Shah's reign displayed the same two trends as were characteristic of his father's period, nationalism and modernization. There were other similarities as well: the new King faced at the beginning foreign occupation and interference, he was challenged by tribal rebellion and unrest, and was beset by an upsurge of provincial separatism and communism. He also had to wage a struggle for economic independence from British dominance of the oil sector. And, like his father, he searched for a friendly third force that would counterbalance both the Soviet and the British influence.
But there were also important differences between the two rulers and the periods during which they reigned. Reza Shah had begun his personal rule from a position of strength. Although his country was in a state of weakness and chaos and foreign troops were present on her soil, Britain was gradually relinquishing her responsibilities in Iran while the Soviet Union, despite a show of aggressive tendencies, was not the colossus she became after World War II, having in the 1920s barely emerged from the struggle for life and death against the counterrevolution of the Whites and foreign intervention. Faced with this situation, Reza Shah commanded the only reliable military force in Iran and the opposition to him, whether in the center or in the tribal areas, could never muster enough strength to overcome his skill, organization, and mobility. By contrast, Mohammad Reza Shah began his reign from a position of weakness dictated by the circumstances. Powerful armies of occupation had just entered his country and intended to stay there at least for the duration of the war. Following the conclusion of World War II, the hasty departure of the British and American troops (the latter were not an occupation force) was a mixed blessing inasmuch as it left Iran exposed to face alone a powerful Soviet military presence.

Liberating the province of Azerbaijanf from a Communist puppet regime

This leads us to another contrast: in the struggle for independence that both rulers had waged, at the time of Mohammad Reza Shah the stakes were higher and the tension greater because the Soviets were both more aggressive and stronger and also because, with the gradual abandonment by Britain of her imperial position east of Suez, the resulting power vacuum threatened the entire area of the Middle Fast. Most significant in this respect was Britain's conceding of independence to India in the late 1940s and two decades later her decision to relinquish imperial responsibilities in the Persian Gulf. True enough. the search for a friendly third force this time brought not only positive results but actually secured for Iran an ally in the form of the strongest yet most benevolent power in the world the United States. But before this alliance was concluded, there was an early tense period during which the availability of this third force was by no means certain. For one thing, the United States was geographically remote; for another, American policy makers needed to be educated in the realities of the power play in the Middle East in general and in Iran in particular. This "educational" process was not an easy matter inasmuch as throughout World War II the United States had conducted a consistent policy of close alliance with the Soviet Union and the entire American government propaganda apparatus was geared to present the Soviets to the American public as respectable allies, unjustly attacked by the Nazi war monster, peace- loving (hence proper candidates to cosponsor the United Nations), and displaying encouraging democratic tendencies. In this respect, it is worth noting, Soviet intrigue in Azerbaijan coupled with the Soviet bid to extend control over IRAN's central government constituted a vital factor in the radical reorientation of American attitudes that eventually found expression in the policy of containment formalized by the Truman Doctrine of 1947. Iran, however, although thus playing a key role in the process of policy change, was a potential victim if the process faltered, and she could have ended in a position similar to that of the Eastern European satellite states. To emerge victorious from these trials required strong nerves, cool courage, and singleness of purpose.


The Shah among the Ayatollahs

There was still another difference between the father and the son. While Reza Shah had to nurture only one nationalist movement during his reign, namly his own, Mohammad Reza Shah had to deal with competing forces that interpreted nationalist objectives and priorities in a different way from his own. This in particular referred to the definition and designation of friends and enemies of IRAN. There were elements during his rule that viewed Western, particularly British, imperialism as the only true danger to IRAN. With such an approach, a possibility existed of effecting an alliance between this type of nationalist and the Communists who, by virtue of their ideologies and loyalties, regarded the West as an enemy. This possibility became an actual reality in the early 1950s and the alliance thus formed attempted to overthrow not only the government but the institution of monarchy as well. The Shah's own nationalism, which he described as "positive" in contrast with the negative, anti-Western brand of the competing forces, had as its objective not only a strong and independent Iran but also close links between Iran, the United States, and her Western friends, both of the latter being viewed as allies in the struggle to preserve Iranian independence and integrity.
Moreover, the Shah did not want to limit IRAN's role to that of a 'junior partner" in a broader alliance to contain Soviet expansionism. He felt that the political situation in the Middle Fast called for a strong Iran that would play a stabilizing role in the region. For this reason he insisted on and secured the development of a well-equipped and trained military establishment that, under his rule, not only enlarged and modernized its land forces but also branched out into military aviation and the navy. By the mid-1970s Iran could be described as enjoying military hegemony in the Persian Gulf region while protecting the vita] sea-lanes through which eighteen million barrels of oil per day were being carried to overseas destinations.

Mohammad Reza Shah's reign differed also from that of his father's in the scope and content of modernization measures. True enough, both kings were reformers, but the reforms carried out during Mohammad Reza's time were more comprehensive and more concerned with social justice and the welfare of the masses. Launched in 1963 and known under the general name of the White Revolution, these reforms contained an original six-point program with land reform as its central objective, later enlarged into seventeen points that embraced a variety of social, economic, and cultural measures. The program represented a broad attack in every conceivable sector against the old ills of the Iranian society. Its many features are reviewed in the chapters that follow. The reforms were accompanied by economic planning and development that in the 1960s and 1970s achieved one of the highest growth rates anywhere in the world. Photo at left: The KING reviews the Persian Gulf fleet. These impressive attainments were further bolstered by the substantial increase in national revenue through a truly revolutionary raising of the prices of exported oil. The latter represented the Shah's own achievement inasmuch as since the middle 1950s he had assumed personal leadership in all matters pertaining to the development of petroleum resources in the country. In this respect, he not only secured IRAN's full control over her oil industry but also led the victorious regional campaign of oil-producing states to ensure that their major natural resource would obtain on world markets a price commensurate with the rising prices of manufactured commodities produced in advanced industrialized states.

Surrounded by US military brass, the Shah, an accomplished pilot examines an F-14 fighter plane atAndrews Air Force base

In spite of the tragic interruption experienced at the time of World War II and its aftermath, the two reigns of the Pahlavi period had this in common that they represented a continuous struggle of strong-willed but caring rulers to elevate their nation from the level of weakness and backwardness to a higher level of strength and modernity. It was indeed a struggle in which many opposing forces both at home and abroad had to be overcome. There were setbacks but there were also spectacular victories. To this day, the story of these trials and achievements are remembered by all Iranians.
In today's IRAN, because the very mention of the Shah's name entails the risk of falling foul of the new authorities most people have developed a code name for the king who died in exile. They call him Khoda Biamorz which, translated literally, means "BLESSED BY GOD". But this is also a term of endearment for a man whose sufferings in the last year of his existence seemed to have put him way beyond the judgment of a world he had tried to reshape.

GLAD HIS SPIRIT... ETERNAL HIS MEMORY

IRANIAN REVOLUTION

The Iranian Revolution ( The Islamic Revolution ) was the 1979 revolution that transformed Iran from a constitutional monarchy, under Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to a populist theocratic Islamic republic under the rule of Ayatollah (or Imam, as he is known in Iran) Ruhollah Khomeini.
The revolution was unique for the surprise it created in the world stage: the speed at which such profound change occurred, the leading role religion took, the fact that the regime was thought to be heavily protected from overthrow by a lavishly financed army and security services, and the lack of many the customary causes of revolution -- defeat at war, financial crises, peasant rebellion, or a disgruntled military.
"The outcome -- an Islamic Republic under the guidance of an 80-year-old, exiled religious scholar from Qom, encouraged by sporadic but enthusiastic popular demonstrations in the formerly (reports had asserted) cosmopolitan Tehran -- dealt a resounding blow to many well-regarded theories. ... It was, clearly, an occurrence that had to be explained. ..."
The revolution has been divided into two stages: The first stage saw an alliance of liberal, leftist, and religious groups oust the Shah. The second stage, often named the Islamic Revolution, saw the Ayatollah's rise to and consolidation of power, and the supression and purge of leaders and groups opposed to Khomeini's theocracy, (including the Islamic Cultural Revolution at Iranian universities).

Causes

Explanations advanced for why the revolution happened include actions of the Shah and the mistakes and successes of the different political forces:
Errors of the Shah
His strong policy of Westernization despite its clash with Iran's Shi'a Muslim cultural and social identity, along with his close identification with and sometimes dependency upon a Western power (the United States);
Extravagance, corruption and elitism (both real and perceived) of the Shah's policies and of his royal court;
His failure to cultivate supporters in the Shi'a religious leadership to counter Khomeini's campaign against him;
The Shah's personalised government, where preventing the creation of rivals to the monarch trumped efficient and effective government and led to the crown's cultivation of divisions within the army and the political elite, and ultimately to the exodus of thousands of upper and middle class Iranians and their money during the beginning of the revolution, and general lack of support for the regime by its natural allies;
Focusing of government surveillance and repression on the People's Mujahedin of Iran and leftists while the more popular religious opposition organized, grew and gradually undermined the authority of his regime;
His antagonizing of formerly apolitical Iranians by the 1975 creation of a single party political monopoly (the Rastakhiz Party), with compulsory membership and dues for the general public;
Authoritarian tendencies that violated the Iran Constitution of 1906, including repression of dissent by security services like the SAVAK, followed by appeasement and appearance of weakness as the revolution gained momentum;
Failure of his overly ambitious 1974 economic program to meet expectations raised by the oil revenue windfall. Bottlenecks, shortages and inflation were followed by black-markets, attacks on alleged price gougers and austerity measures that angered both the bazaar and the masses;
His overconfident disinterest in governance and preoccupation with playing the world statesmen during the oil boom, followed by a loss of self-confidence and resolution and a weakening of his health from cancer as the revolution gained momentum;
Underestimation of the strength of the opposition -- particularly religious opposition -- and the failure to offer either enough carrots or sticks. Efforts to please the opposition were "too little too late," but no concerted counter-attack was made against the revolutionaries either.
Failures and successes of other political forces
Overconfidence of the secularists and modernist Muslims, of liberals and leftists in their power and ability to control the revolution;
Shrewdness of Ayatollah Khomeini in winning the support of these liberals and leftists when he needed them to overthrow the Shah by underplaying his hand and avoiding issues (such as guardianship of the jurists) he planned to implement but knew would be a deal breaker for his more secular and modernist Muslim allies;
Shrewdness and energy of Khomeini's organizers in Iran who outwitted the Shah's security forces and won broad support with their tactical ingenuity -- amongst other things, fooling Iranians into thinking the Shah's security was more brutal than it was.
The self-confidence and charisma of the Ayatollah Khomeini that allowed him to capture the imagination of masses of Iranians, and be seen by many as a savior figure.
Policies of the American government, who both helped create an image of the Shah as American puppet with their high profile and the 1953 subversion of the government on his behalf, but also pressured the Shah to liberalize thus triggering the revolution, and finally failed to decide on a clear response to the revolution, misreading the opposition (and in particular the goals of Khomeini).

Azadi Tower: The Symbol of Tehran

Tehran (also spelled Teheran) is the latest and the largest capital city in the 5000-year history of Persia, as Iran was called by many people in the West before 1935. A huge bustling city of 8 million , Tehran is situated on the southern slopes of the Elburz Mountains 100 km from the Caspian Sea. It lies at an elevation of about 1,200 metres above sea level. To the south extends the central plateau of Iran. The name Tehran is derived from the Old Persian teh, “warm,” and ran, “place.”
Tehran is the successor to the ancient Persian capital of Rayy, which was destroyed by the Mongols in AD 1220; the village of Tehran is believed to have been a suburb of Rayy in the 4th century, and after the fall of Rayy many of the inhabitants moved to Tehran. When Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, the founder of the Ghajar Dynasty, named Tehran his capital about 200 years ago, it had an estimated population of 15000.
Now, barely two centuries later, Tehran has grown into a huge maze of tall and short buildings, narrow and wide streets, spread over an area of 600 square kilometres, in which the 8 million inhabitants of the city live, work and move around. It's a melting pot of the poor and the rich, the religious and the not-so-religious, and the many races that make up what has come to be known as the Iranian nation, the Fars, the Kurds, the Turks, the Lors, the Arabs, the Afghans and many more...

In the western part of this huge jungle of bricks, concrete and steel, at what used to be the western entrance to the city, stands Azadi Tower, a 35-year-old structure which has come to be the symbol of Tehran.
Built in a combination of Islamic and Sassanid architectural styles with an arch which is said to mirror the Elburz (Alborz) mountain range, the 45-metre tower is faced with 8000 white stone slabs from the city of Esfahan (itself an old capital of Iran), so well-known for the craftsmanship of its inhabitants. The tower is near Mehrabad Airport and was opened in 1971.
It was built at the order of Iran's last king of the Pahlavi Dynasty, Mohammad Reza, known by most westerners as the "Shah" of Iran, the word Shah meaning King in Persian. He named the tower and the square surrounding it "Shahyad", which can be roughly translated into "In the Memory of the King".
Ironically the square turned into a focal point for anti-regime demonstrations during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with most of the major anti-Shah rallies terminating right in Shahyad Square where resolutions were read out calling for an end to the monarchy and the establishment of an Islamic Republic.

Finally the tower and square were officially renamed Azadi, meaning "liberty" in Persian, after the toppling of the monarchy.
It may be a good mental exercise to try and find out why and how Mohammad Reza Shah's ambitions for a modern and secular Iran that was supposed to revive the long lost glory of the ancient Persian Empire, turned out to be the futile dreams of a monarch severely out of touch with reality when the very bricks of the so-called modern Iran poured into streets in their millions demanding an Islamic Republic.
In the quest for a better understanding of the recent history of Iran, "Azadi" Tower, where modernity, Islam and national heritage were supposed to shake hands, may well hold the clue.
But like it or not, the not-so-majestic Azadi Tower, a modern structure boasting to marry national heritage and Islamic culture, has become an integral part of the image of Tehran.
The aesthetic worth of the tower? Well, it's a matter of taste, I suppose. Personally, I have never liked it. I find it an anemic pretentious structure, aiming at being everything and predictably ending up being nothing...

Sweep over the Sea

My heart has star in it ... the star that call me from behind your looking window to be with your love...
and it was still our only secret... a sign of all forbidden signs on the wall of destiny...
I can not see anything else... only blue sky... what human wants from all four seasons? that i have all seasons with you...
Yes ... it is not too far,tomorrow...and tomorrow has different colour ... more beauty and nice than today...Even Winter is beautiful with you... even woundering is nice to me if i have you ...
My Eyes for You... May I clean my wet eyes............?

These days... I Feel that I am hanging on between Sky and Earth...
My Eyes for You ... May I clean my Teardrops or not?