One the most interesting, documented based, eye opening interview that hope people watch with open mind. Thank you, well done. The only wish I have would be, the translation of it to Farsi for non English language speakers. 🙏
Mr. Milano, The reality of Iranian women today is that we have history and memory of what Shah and Reza Shah gave us to make us different from our neighboring countries. Let’s give credit to where credit is due.
One point is that Reza Shah didn't change the name of the country from Persia to Iran. The name of the Iran was on the country for thousands of years. Read Shahname or Avesta and other old resources and then you will find the name of Iran in those resources . Reza Shah just asked the foreign countries to correct themselves and use the correct and historical names for the country which is Iran.
من هرگز فرصت نداشتم که به خاطر کتاب نگاهی به شاه از ایشون تشکر کنم؛ ولی الان این فرصت رو مغتنم میشمرم و کمال قدردانی خودم رو از تلاشهای ایشان و تیمشون ابراز میکنم. بسیار ممنون میشیم اگر زیرنویس فارسی هم برای این مصاحبه در نظر بگیرید که طیف بیشتری از هموطنان از محضرشون استفاده کنند. شاد و سلامت باشید.
“Iran has the capacity of becoming a powerful nation” we were so close to becoming a powerful nation prior to 1979. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Milani doesn’t talk more about all the wonders that Shah did for Iran. Why do we care if Shah was a womanizer or not, the only person that should have cared was his wife.
A remarkable interview. Mr. Milani is completely knowledgeable in this era of History. I was delighted to sit and watch this completely fascinated. Thank you for good job to both the interviewer and the interviewee
at 1:00:00 it was mentioned that Iranian do know about their history-- maybe Stanford, ad similar colleges to start giving the grant to study this history Sir.
Thank you very much Dr Milani for your interview. I have read your book on the "Shah" and enjoyed it very much. As you clearly say , we that is all Iranians inside or outside of the country are to be blamed to bring about this mediaeval regime to rule for 43 years now. We did not think about what is the better alternative to the monarchy, so given our collective paranoia we bring Mullahs to power.
The subtitles are horrendously wrong, I think its automatic and gets many words very wrong (like jepe, political font or party translated as Japan.) Just a heads up to foreign viewers
i cant gett enough of this interview. Thank you very much,hope you can finish this documentary series.Meanwhile i dont understand why impress is not willing to give you an interview
@@davidamrachow there are hearsay and a few interviews that I am aware of, but not a cohesive document or a book. Number of old guards seem to indicate her detachment while her husband health was in balance.
@@davidamrachow to start, try the movie called “A Dying King: The Shah”. It’s more of a documentary and contains interviews with numerous doctors n people involved in Shah’ health care during his last days. The movie is interesting in the fact that she is almost invisible in any decision making about her husband’s health or care. She also refused an interview with the producer and exerted her influence on the French doctors to also refuse to talk to the producers. What’s she hiding???
هیچ ایرانی مسلمان نیست، و هیچ مسلمانی ایرانی نیست! ما ایرانیان باید به دین و آئینِ راستی، نیکی و پیروز نیاکانمان باز گردیم. سواستیکا🍀پاینده ایران🕊جاوید شاه!🌹👑🌹
Watch Shah interview with Mike Wallace where Mike asked him (toung in cheek) you want to be powerful in a rough neighborhood, Shah looked at him and for a micro second gives the evidence that (disoncerted in his eye expression) he understood Mike Wallace was humoring him. Then he quickly pulled himself together and says, Yes one must be Strong. The classical example of an oedipal man, unconsciously castrated man. All that army all that projection of power was lame defense against deepseated vulnerability. He needed few years of analysis and then would have permitted himself to go on and live a full life as a playboy somewhere beyond a hellhole called Iran.
Millani is a bitter old man who never take serious He is just bitter that shah did not even take him any relevant History will remember millani as a better of Iranian history
@@ahappyimago مگر از کمونیستها ادمکش تر و خاین تر و وطن فروش هم وجود داشت؟ بخاطر شما نوکرهای روسیه و چین است که ندا ها و مهسا ها و نیکا ها کشته و شکنجه میشوند
@@ahappyimago همین چپ هایی که شعار زن زندگی آزادی راه انداختن کسانی بودند که سال ۴۴ و ۵۷ برعلیه حق رایی که شاهنشاه آریامهر به زنان داده با اسلامیست ها همدست شدند و مخالف حقوق زنان بودند حالا میخان با این نیرنگ به قدرت برگردند
My disagreement with Milani's take on the Iranian revolution centers on his strangely single-minded focus on the available documents that supposedly tell the "official" story of the Pahlavi Dynasty in the years leading up to the Islamic revolt, i.e., the second Arab invasion of Iran. It's as if Milani wills himself -- with skeptical blinders, no less -- to base his opinions solely on the official narrative, nothing but "documented facts," Sir! In other words, if the CIA releases a cable from 1977, advancing the prognosis that "the Shah is in very good health and should rule Iran throughout the 1980s," Milani then declares righteously: "You see! The sorry lads at the CIA got it all wrong! They were caught completely flat-footed -- caught off guard by the events in 1978!" As if we're all simpletons just off the turnip truck and we don't understand that there's a difference between "CIA Proper" and the other CIA (the real CIA) that does all of their dirty deeds around the world with dark money (Ex: Iran/Contra). There are now plenty of documents released by French intelligence proving that the CIA spent at least $150 million on the "Khomeini project." In fact, the house that Khomeini lived in France was rented out by the CIA. Does Milani ever allude to these facts? Indeed, it is now common knowledge that almost all of the western intelligence agencies knew as early as 1975 (if not much sooner) that the Shah had cancer, especially the French and Israeli intelligence, and yes, the MI6, CIA and the KGB. But like an obediant soldier, Milani keeps his analysis limited to the official documents. It's almost as if Milani himself is an intelligence operative at spook central (Stanford), given the tall task of white-washing any consequential foreign support/assistance in the destruction of the monarchy. Why else would Milani make the absurd comment, "What does Zbigniew Brzezinsky know about Iran?" Even in those days, the US national security apparatus had tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal with an endless reservoir of intelligence -- so-called "Iran experts" like Richard Cottam, Marvin Zonis and James Bill to name just a few, not to mention Bernard Lewis, the British/Jewish expert on Iran, highly celebrated in both Israel and England. Lewis is the venerated scholar behind the "Green Belt" theory and Brzezinsky's mentor. Or how about Bernard Lewis's close friend and confidante, Ann Lambton, the British expert on Iran, who some say knew Iranians better than the Iranians knew themselves. As early as 1953, Lambton advocated the thesis that Iran doesn't need a democracy or a monarchy, but rather, an "Islamic Republic." Equally absurd, Milani asserts that "Intelligence agencies never saw political Islam as a threat because they never thought these guys were serious about seizing power. They thought the Islamists were just a nuisance." This type of kindergarten analysis is not only laughable, but disingenuous. A treasure trove of CIA documents confiscated after the US Embassy seizure by Khomeini's thugs in 1979 betrays Milani's obfuscation and clearly illustrates that the American intelligence community fully understood the threat posed by the clergy. A 1982 Washington Post article titled, "Intelligence Experts Had Early Doubts About Shah's Stability," describes one such intelligence report from 1976, indicating that "Washington was warned repeatedly that the mullahs and their followers, including wealthy merchants, could coalesce around an issue or an incident to offer a real challenge." Here, therefore, it seems Milani, the former Marxist revolutionary, has taken a page out of the Ulama's playbook, resorting to "kitman/taqiya" (Shiite art of deception) in order to promote a distorted, one-dimensional view of the revolution. Has the good professor also forgotten Khomein's first attempt to topple the Shah in 1963? Point being, of course the Shah made critical mistakes in the end, especially allowing the religious right to increase their presence and power (this was the Cold War era, after all, and this was no doubt the result of CIA/CFR geopolitical strategy to thwart Soviet aggression toward the warm waters of the Persian Gulf, but let us not forget who created the SAVAK in the first place). And even with all of the Shah's so-called mistakes, the revolution was NOT a foregone conclusion, not even when the Shah left Iran on January 16, 1979. What made the revolution a foregone conclusion was the declaration of neutrality by the army. And who engineered such a ruinous event? General Huyser and the Americans (ala "The Huyser Mission") and the British. But here's my question: why wouldn't the Americans support the legal transition of power from the Shah to the Regency and the Crown Prince? If stability is what they were truly after in the region, why not support the legal succession of the Pahlavi Dynasty, backed by the world's 5th largest military, in tact? Why opt for the Radical Islam option? Why support a reactionary cleric like Khomeini (aka, Ayatollah BBC) and bloodthirsty clowns like Ghotbzadeh and Ebrahim Yazdi (since the early 1970s) unless that's the direction you planned for the region all along? But the dutiful professor keeps his analysis limited to a selective set of "official" documents (read: the official western post-mortem). As the saying goes, winners write the history, or in this case, re-write the history. Perched high above the hoi polloi in his esteemed position at Stanford University, the good professor sits in a perfect spot to do just that.
