The Channels

Without exception all iranians are the decendant of Cyrus the Great and that makes them all to have royal blood running in their veins--

Trace...tracing... traced...

Mr. Eskandari is one of literally tens of thousands of Qajar Princes and Princesses in and outside of Iran. The Qajars were famed for having tens of wives at a time (often as young as 9 yrs old) and having 20, 50, or 100 children from thier many wives. You can do the math and figure how many decendents they would have 10 to 20 generations later. Another noteworthy point is that, in todays atmosphere of derision in Iran, the only thing that all Iranians are united in is thier dislike of the Qajar dynasty (this included Iranian "Royalists"). The Qajars consisted of a handfull of sloth-like pleasure seeking kings who, to the person, smoked opiem regularly. During the 135 dark years that they ruled Iran, 40% of Iranian land (roughly 6 modern day countries) were taken away or signed away from Iran by the Qajar kings, at times, in direct exchange for money in thier personal coffers.

It takes special talent to be THE WORST dynasty EVER in a 2500 monarchy. The Qajars (kajars) were self-serving, backward, religious zealots who sold or gave half the county away out of shear incompetence or for personal gain. WORST DYNASTY EVER...

"Iran was led by the Kadjar Dynasty for over 130 years before being overthrown
by a military coup led by Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1925." THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE AND UTTER -OUTRIGHT LIE - PLEASE REMOVE THIS AND DESSIST IN SAYING IT AGAIN-

I'm affraid this is not a great find. Ghajar "Princes" and "Princese" are a dime a dozen. The main contribution of this dynesty was marrying multiple under-aged girls and fathering ennumerable children generation after generation. Chances are, if you see any two Iranians at random, one of them has Ghajar blood in them. The difference is that some do not know (or would not care to know) if they have Ghajar blood, while some do. The Ghajar's were the most incompetent of all rulers over the past 2500 years of Iranian History. Most Iranians would agree that even today's fanatical backward mollah regime has done less damage to Iran than the Ghajars did.

Long ago I made a promise to myself not to engage in polemics, but given that this article about me was published in our school journal, my silence regarding the comments made on this page might be interpreted as acquiescence.

I would hope that well-meaning individuals, my students and the readers at large, would inform themselves on the truth of the matter regarding the period of rule the Qajar era represents in Persian history. Thankfully there are now hundreds of articles and books available to give a clearer picture of that period, the latest of which being a book on War and Peace in the Qajar Era, published by Routledge in 2007, to which I contributed a chapter on the decision-making processes of the early Qajars.

Innuendo and insult have their own logic and are not amenable to reason, since those who engage in them are afraid that their cherished beliefs may turn out to be wrong. I have experienced this over and over again. There is therefore nothing I could ever say that would sway those who engage in these things. In fact, having tried, I have only experienced more insult and innuendo from the same quarters and I do not expect any different this time around. My reply really concerns those who would seek to inform themselves more on the matter, and if following my encouragement even one person would study the matter more, I would consider that a victory in and of itself.

Mr.Eskandari
I have accused you of lying and telling outright falsehood when you say that in 1924, Reza Shah the Great came to power after a cod de tat-
From 1906 for 18 long years -- as a de-facto head of the army and having all the power necessary for taking power by force --and having every opportunity to do so - he did not do that.
He was selected and then invested to the throne of the new Pahlavi dynasty by the elected members of the parliament. Faire and square.
Now - no amount of rewriting of history will change that.
I am amazed that in the American Universities Establishment people like you are tolerated and allowed to peddle this kind of out right lies.

I don't think any dynasty or government has ever ruled, perfectly. Qajars & Pahlavi's included. Every government experiences some "time of amnesia." Something America, may be experiencing now.

What I do know, is that Eskandari, is a honorable and righteous man, Prince if you will. If anything, he has learned from the many lessons of history and teaches those in his classroom on a daily basis. His passion for learning, quest for knowledge and love of the truth (however unpleasant) are only a testament to the beliefs which are rooted in his dynasty and education. One thing that Eskandari and a fellow Austrian taught, that while history may be a tidal wave of brutality, human beings are fundamentally good, present company included.

Unless I missed the lecture on Harems, I don't this is something that the Prince has or ever will advocate. Quite to the contrary. The only thing Eskandari would mandate for underage children is a proper education, with an introduction to the classics, Socrates & Shakespeare to name a few.

Its really unfortunate, with everything in the world happening, Global Warming, Britney Spears, Obama and Hillary, and Brangelina, that name calling, tomfoolery and outright schenanagins would ensue over a simple article about a mans heritage.

I just hope the words of a few will not make the Good Professor regret doing this article. One thing that Eskandari has been able to do is to cross cultural bridges, religious bridges and stereotypes by having the idealism of a saint!

I am not an academician and do not claim that I have studied or know all that has ever been printed or researched into this subject but the following is what I regard to more near the truth of the events leading to the replacement of the Qajar dynasty with the pahlavi dynasty.
The so called coup d'etat that accured in 1921 - (as you can see below -- it is not listed as such in the list of coup d'etats listed in Wikipedia for a good reason)-was against the Bolsheviks and NOT against the Qajar king and its purpose was not to depose him.
Yes, Reza Shah did move with his loyal solders from Gazvin into Tehran - but that was not to overthrow the raining king or to change the government of the day.
This was a nationalistic move to ascertain the rule of Iranian Army against the troops of a foreign country -- which had invaded and had taken over the running of part of the country. this is termed as a "Guardian coup d'etat" -- see below-
That is why it toke up to 1925 for the parliment to eventually replace the qajar dynesty with the Pahlavi dynasty.
For more information please read the few bits of information that I have gathered here quickly -- which is only a taste of such an immense and so misunderstood period of Iranian contemporary history -- and which unfortunately dose not get the right treatments it deserves even in Universities teaching modern history.
The Constitutional Revolution
The shah's son and successor, Muzaffar ad Din (1896-1907), was a weak and ineffectual ruler. Royal extravagance and the absence of incoming revenues exacerbated financial problems. The shah quickly spent two large loans from Russia, partly on trips to Europe. Public anger fed on the shah's propensity for granting concessions to Europeans in return for generous payments to him and his officials. People began to demand a curb on royal authority and the establishment of the rule of law as their concern over foreign, and especially Russian, influence grew.

The shah's failure to respond to protests by the religious establishment, the merchants, and other classes led the merchants and clerical leaders in January 1906 to take sanctuary from probable arrest in mosques in Tehran and outside the capital. When the shah reneged on a promise to permit the establishment of a "house of justice," or consultative assembly, 10,000 people, led by the merchants, took sanctuary in June in the compound of the British legation in Tehran. In August the shah was forced to issue a decree promising a constitution. In October an elected assembly convened and drew up a constitution that provided for strict limitations on royal power, an elected parliament, or Majlis, with wide powers to represent the people, and a government with a cabinet subject to confirmation by the Majlis. The shah signed the constitution on December 30, 1906. He died five days later. The Supplementary Fundamental Laws approved in 1907 provided, within limits, for freedom of press, speech, and association, and for security of life and property. According to scholar Ann K.S. Lambton, the Constitutional Revolution marked the end of the medieval period in Iran. The hopes for constitutional rule were not realised, however.

Muzaffar ad Din's successor, Mohammed Ali Shah, was determined to crush the constitution. After several disputes with the members of the Majlis, in June 1908 he used his Russian-officered Persian Cossacks Brigade to bomb the Majlis building, arrest many of the deputies, and close down the assembly. Resistance to the shah, however, coalesced in Tabriz, Esfahan, Rasht, and elsewhere. In July 1909, constitutional forces marched from Rasht and Esfahan to Tehran, deposed the shah, and re-established the constitution. The ex-shah went into exile in Russia.

Although the constitutional forces had triumphed, they faced serious difficulties. The upheavals of the Constitutional Revolution and civil war had undermined stability and trade. In addition, the ex-shah, with Russian support, attempted to regain his throne, landing troops in July 1910. Most serious of all, the hope that the Constitutional Revolution would inaugurate a new era of independence from the great powers ended when, under the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907, Britain and Russia agreed to divide Iran into spheres of influence. The Russians were to enjoy exclusive right to pursue their interests in the northern sphere, the British in the south and east; both powers would be free to compete for economic and political advantage in a neutral sphere in the centre. Matters came to a head when Morgan Shuster, a United States administrator hired as treasurer general by the Persian government to reform its finances, sought to collect taxes from powerful officials who were Russian protégés and to send members of the treasury gendarmerie, a tax department police force, into the Russian zone. When in December 1911 the Majlis
unanimously refused a Russian ultimatum demanding Shuster's dismissal, Russian troops, already in the country, moved to occupy the capital. To prevent this, on December 20 Bakhtiari chiefs and their troops surrounded the Majlis building, forced acceptance of the Russian ultimatum, and shut down the assembly, once again suspending the constitution. There followed a period of government by Bakhtiari chiefs and other powerful notables.

World War I

Iran hoped to avoid entanglement in World War I by declaring its neutrality, but ended up as a battleground for Russian, Turkish, and British troops. When German agents tried to arouse the southern tribes against the British, Britain created an armed force, the South Persia Rifles, to protect its interests. Then a group of Iranian notables led by Nezam os Saltaneh Mafi, hoping to escape Anglo-Russian dominance and sympathetic to the German war effort, left Tehran, first for Qom and then for Kermanshah (renamed Bakhtaran after the fall of Mohammed Reza Shah in 1979), where they established a provisional government. The provisional government lasted for the duration of the war but failed to capture much support.

At the end of the war, because of Russia's preoccupation with its own revolution, Britain was the dominant influence in Tehran. The foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, proposed an agreement under which Britain would provide Iran with a loan and with advisers to the army and virtually every government department. The Iranian prime minister, Vosuq od-Dowleh, and two members of his cabinet who had received a large financial inducement from the British, supported the agreement. The Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 was widely viewed as establishing a British protectorate over Iran. However, it aroused considerable opposition, and the Majlis refused to approve it. The agreement was already dead when, in February 1921, Persian Cossacks Brigade officer Reza Khan, in collaboration with prominent journalist Sayyid Zia ad Din Tabatabai, marched into Tehran and seized power, inaugurating a new phase in Iran's modern history.
Reza Shah Pahlavi, who as Reza Khan seized power from the Bolsheviks - in 1921 and established a new dynasty in 1925, reflected the failure of the constitutional experiment. His early actions also reflected the aspirations of educated Iranians to create a state that was strong, centralised, free of foreign interference, economically developed, and sharing those characteristics thought to distinguish the more advanced states of Europe from the countries of the East. See: http://www.parstimes.com/history/historicalsetting.html
THE ERA OF REZA SHAH (1921-1941)

Tabatabai became prime minister and Reza Khan became commander of the armed forces in the new government. Reza Khan, however, quickly emerged as the dominant figure. Within three months, Tabatabai was forced out of the government and into exile. Reza Khan became minister of war. In 1923 Ahmad Shah agreed to appoint Reza Khan prime minister and to leave for Europe. The shah was never to return. Reza Khan seriously considered establishing a republic, as Atatürk had done in Turkey, but abandoned the idea as a result of clerical opposition. In October 1925, a Majlis dominated by Reza Khan's men deposed the Qajar dynasty; in December the Majlis conferred the crown on Reza Khan and his heirs. The military officer who had become master of Iran was crowned as Reza Shah Pahlavi in April 1926.

Even before he became shah, Reza Khan had taken steps to create a strong central government and to extend government control over the country. Now, as Reza Shah, with the assistance of a group of army officers and younger bureaucrats, many trained in Europe, he launched a broad program of change designed to bring Iran into the modern world. To strengthen the central authority, he built up Iran's heterogeneous military forces into a disciplined army of 40,000, and in 1926 he persuaded the Majlis to approve a law for universal military conscription. Reza Shah used the army not only to bolster his own power but also to pacify the country and to bring the tribes under control. In 1924 he broke the power of Shaykh Khazal, who was a British protégé and practically autonomous in Khuzestan. In addition, Reza Shah forcibly settled many of the tribes.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
You searched for The coup d'etat of 1921 and the emergence of Reza Khan [Index]

There is no page titled "The coup d'etat of 1921 and the emergence of Reza Khan".
Tactically, a coup d'état usually involves control by an active portion of the country's military, while neutralising the remainder of the armed services possible counteraction. The acting group either captures or expels the political and military leaders, seizes physical control of the most important government offices, means of communication, and the physical infrastructure, such as key streets and electric power plants.

The coup d'état succeeds if its opponents fail to thwart the usurpers, allowing them to consolidate their positions, obtain the surrender of the overthrown government or acquiescence of the populace and the surviving armed forces, and thus claim legitimacy. Coups d'état typically use the power of the existing government for the take-over. As Edward Luttwak remarks in Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook: A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder. In this sense, the use of either military or another organised force is not the defining feature of a coup d'État.

Besides Luttwak's non-military coup d'état, Samuel P. Huntington identifies three classes of coup d'état:

Breakthrough coup d'état: a revolutionary army overthrows a traditional government and creates a new bureaucratic élite. Generally led by non-commissioned officers (NCOs) or junior officers and happen once. Examples are China in 1911, Bulgaria in 1944, Egypt in 1952, Greece in 1967, Libya in 1969 and Liberia in 1980.
Guardian coup d'état: the musical chairs coup d'état. The stated aim of which is improving public order, efficiency, and ending corruption. There usually is no fundamental change to the power structure. Generally, the leaders portray their actions as a temporary and unfortunate necessity. An early example is the coup d'état by Sulla, in 88 B.C., replacing the elected leader Marius in Rome. A contemporary instance is civilian Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's overthrow by Chief of Army Staff General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, who cited widespread civil disorder and impending civil war as his justification. In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the same grounds. Nations with guardian coups shift between civilian and military government. Example countries include Pakistan, Turkey, and Thailand. The "bloodless coup" usually arises from the Guardian coup d'état.
Veto coup d'état: occurs when the army vetoes the people's mass participation and social mobilisation in governing themselves. In such a case, the army confronts and suppresses large-scale, broad-based civil opposition, tending to fascist repression and killing, the prime example is the coup d'état in Chile in 1973 against the elected Socialist President Salvador Allende Gossens.
A coup d'état also is classified by the rank of the military men leading the governmental overthrow. A Veto coup d'état or Guardian coup d'état is led by the army's top commanding officers (usually generals). Sometimes the commander-in-chief, or a few very top commanders are excluded, as being appointees of the regime and thus loyal to them. In a Breakthrough coup d'état the leaders are junior officers (colonels or below), or even non-commissioned officers (sergeants), and most of the army's senior officers are displaced too. When junior officers or enlisted men seize power in this way, the coup d'état also is a mutiny with grave implications for the organisational structure and professional integrity of the military.

A bloodless coup d'état is when the threat of violence is sufficient to depose the incumbent government with no fighting, and there are no subsequent executions of the deposed faction. However, a "bloodless coup d'état" is not always truly non-violent. Napoleon's 18 Burlier coup d'état is considered an exemplar "bloodless coup", but during the coup, legislators were forcibly ejected from their meeting place by soldiers. In 1889, Brazil became a republic via a bloodless coup. In 1999, Pervez Musharraf assumed power in Pakistan via a bloodless coup, and, in 2006, Sonthi Boonyaratglin assumed power in Thailand as the leader of the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy.

The term self-coup applies when the incumbent government -- aided and abetted by the military -- assumes extraordinary powers not allowed by law. The historical example is President, and later French Emperor, Louis Napoléon Bonaparte. A a modern example is Alberto Fujimori in Peru, who, though elected, in 1992 assumed control of legislative and the judicial branches of government, installing himself as an authoritarian ruler. The assumption of "emergency powers" by King Gyanendra of Nepal was a self-coup.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
This is a list of coup d'état and coup attempts.
1920

1920: In the Plan of Agua Prieta, General Álvaro Obregón, backed by labour unions and Zapatistas, ousts Mexican President Venustiano Carranza.
1920: The Kapp Putsch, a failed attempt to overthrow Germany's Weimar Republic by the Freikorps Ehrhardt.
1922: Italian Fascist paramilitary groups (The Blackshirts) march on Rome from 27 October to 29 October. The King refuse the martial law decree proposed by the Prime Minister Luigi Facta and gave power to Mussolini. After the election fraud of 1924, Italy turn to a totalitarian system on January 3, 1925.
1923: Miguel Primo de Rivera installs a dictatorship in Spain without overthrowing the king.
1923: The Beer Hall Putsch, a failed coup attempt by Adolf Hitler in Germany.
1923: In Bulgaria, the military-backed 9 June coup d'état overthrows the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union of Aleksandar Stamboliyski, installing one headed by Aleksandar Tsankov.
1924: Chilean President Arturo Alessandri resigns and flees after the army, led by Luis Altamirano, heads a coup.
1924: Unsuccessful pro-Communist coup in Estonia.
1925: General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo and Colonel Marmaduque Grove depose the military ruler of Chile, Luis Altamirano. They later allow former president Arturo Alessandri to return to Chile.
1926: May Coup of Józef Pi?sudski in Poland.
1926: 28th May military coup of Gomes da Costa in Portugal.
1926: 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état? of Antanas Smetona in Lithuania

Bam-a-ram-Bam-Bam

I don't know how good it is to quote Wikipedia, but its much better than attacking the Just Professor in such a personal way.

Thanks for the courtesy of replying with information, not innuendo. My apologies if the Bam-a-ram-Bam-Bam was offensive.

"Destiny smiles upon me but without making me the least bit happier."

"The longer you live and the more you learn, the more clearly you will feel the difference between the few men who are truly great and the mere virtuosi."

Former Student- and now perhaps a little more educated-now that you have read the information that I had provided-
The point that I am making is that "The Reza shah the Great - did not came to power as a result of a coup d'etat against the ruling Qajar king -- and that he was chosen by the parliament in a free vote to replace the Qajar dynasty with the Pahlavi dynasty.
If you have anything to say about this -- please go ahead otherwise -- keep your wise cracks for your girlfriend.
P.S. At least I have the courage to show you who I am -- but you on the other hand -- are just a comedian.

Three key facts r.e. the Ghajars:
Fact #1) There are more Ghajar decendants in this World than you can shake a stick at. As mentioned in another post above, The Ghajar kings, and thier decendents, each had many wives with many children from each, generation after generation. The math isn't hard. A modest estimate would put the number of Ghajar "prince"s and "Princess"es into the hundreds of thousands.
Fact #2) Between the time the Ghajars took over Iran and when they finally were forcibly removed, the Iran shrank to about half it's former size. Due, purely, to the incompetence of the Ghajars kings who were the absolute sovereigns of the country when these historical swaths of Iran were forever removed from thier homeland.
Fact #3) At the time the Iranian Parliement and Reza Shah finally removed the Ghajars from the throne, what little had remained from Iran's former self was literrally at the verge of being broken up into independent countries. The British, for instance, were signing oil exploratiuon treaties with the local war lord in the south with no involvement of the supposedly king or central government of Iran [Had the Ghajars curse stayed on Iran another ten years, Iran would have been reduced to a piece of desert south of the Alborz mountains].
These are facts that are supported by ANY reputable academic research on the Ghajar era. They are not meant as an attack on Dr. Esfandiari.

I keep promising myself not to answer these comments, but, I am silence on such matters is taken as consent or inability to answer.

I fail to see how the large number of royal princes in the Qajar family detracts from the fact that they are indeed princes. I know that what drives this canard is that the respondents somehow want to imply "dime a dozen." That is fine. People are entitled to their opinions as bigoted, prejudiced and insulting as they may be. However, let us be clear, this does not constitute an argument. How is the argument from number a denial of the fact? Male descendants of kings are not referred to as princes only if there are only a few of them, they are referred to as such if they are descendants of kings in the male line and if the custom and protocol of that country designates them as princes. It is a simple matter of tradition and no amount of innuendo will ever change that.

There is another implication to all of this, namely that somehow by being referred to as a prince, I have sought to be honored as such or to be deferred to because of my rank as a Qajar prince. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact very few people know of my background and the last thing I would do is to ask for a newspaper article to alert people to that fact. This article was written by a student at SBCC, who found out about my background and was going to publish it, whether I gave the interview or not. If the fact that my background is being talked about in a campus publication is somehow upsetting to people, surely the onus rests on them to seek help for whatever it is that troubles them and not the blame on me. As to the belittling of my person for being a member of a family that ruled Iran for close to 150 years and for being a prince by birthright among, indeed, numerous fellow Qajar princes, as a result; that does not deserve an answer. It would be beneath my dignity to do so.

The remaining "facts" mentioned by my eager compatriots should be examined in their own right and have been, to my great delight, more and more since the demise of the Pahlavis and the distance from the written and unwritten rule that nothing, nothing positive could ever be said about the Qajars under their rule for fear that it might detract from the glory of the Pahlavis.

Let me take one instance only, the question of territory, which seems to be troubling so many minds. When my ancestors became overlords of the tattered country that Persia was at the death of Karim Khan Zand, Agha Mohammad Khan, the founder of our dynasty, fought in the Caucasus and in the province of Herat, to regain what had been lost since Safavid times. He reconquered all the lost territory in the Caucasus and was killed on his second campaign to finish off the remnants of Catherine the Great's armies opposing him. What he reconquered his nephew could not hold. Why? Because he was faced with the strongest military superpower of the time to his north and the machinations of two other superpowers at his Court. If we are to hold that Fath Ali Shah and Abbas Mirza lost Iranian territory because they were weak, then we have to answer the question, where was that territory before them, and we have to ask the further question, who could have withstood the brunt of Russian armies at that time? For God's sake, Napoleon could not. As to Herat, Agha Mohammad Khan died before he could turn his armies to the reconquest of Herat. Abbas Mirza, my illustrious ancestor, died before he could engage in the Herat campaign for which he was preparing from Khorassan. His son, Mohammad Shah conquered Herat and held it for three months until the British landed in the Persian Gulf pressuring him to relent. His son, Nasser-ed-Din Shah, again, conquered Herat and again was forced to relinquish it because the British landed at Bushehr and threatened to invade if he did not relent. I agree he could have done more and beat those crooked teethed Brits, but you know, name one ruler in the Middle East who managed to beat them at that time and I will blame Fath Ali Shah, Abbas Mirza, Mohammad Shah and Nasser-ed-Din Shah forever for not having been stronger in their efforts. To repeat, Napoleon could not!

Now let us compare the great Pahlavis to the weak Qajars, since that is always the tenor of everything when it comes to these conversations. The much vaunted army of Reza Shah surrendered to the Brits and Russians in 1941 without firing a single shot, resulting in the great king being put on a British ship, destination South Africa, where he died in exile. And what of the great army of Mohammad Reza Shah? With all the money and weaponry in the world, it was overwhelmed by a man in a turban, and Mohammad Reza Shah ended up in exile looking for a country to shelter him, and the repercussions of that are still being played out to this day. And what of Iranian territory under the Pahlavis? True, Mohammad Reza Shah did manage to take back Azarbaijan from the separatist pro-Soviet movement of Pishevari, but then turned around and gave away Bahrain to the crooked teethed Brits.

And so it goes and so it goes, but this is not to put blame, just to show that the implied perfection of one family and the insisted upon imperfection of the other is a relative matter, relative to which facts are going to be marshaled to support one's case. That is why academic debate is necessary, because in that arena facts cannot be mentioned selectively perpetually. Eventually they will be examined in the light of additional and other facts. That has been my passion for the last ten years in organizing yearly conferences on the Qajar era and in publishing everything that comes to our attention on the subject. The latest effort on War and Peace in the Qajar Era is the result of our conference in Cambridge, England in 2005. I highly recommend it in view of the great misconceptions that still exist on the question of war and peace in the Qajar era.

God help me since I am spending so much time arguing points here that really need no more argument, and God help me also that I keep returning to this blasted page instead of focusing on my work, but, dear Mr. Rad, you are the only person I have ever encountered who would object to the description of the takeover by Reza Khan in 1921 as a coup. God help me also that I should ever quote Wikipedia since I have taunted my students mercilessly for doing so in all these years, but your cherished source, such as it is, elaborates profusely on the "1921 coup" by Reza Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah). Allow me to add to this the words of Mr. Jahangir Amouzegar in his book The Dynamics of the Iranian Revolution: The Pahlavis' Triumph and Tragedy (1991), whose pro-Pahlavi credentials are impeccable indeed. He states on p. 9, among other places, that "In February 1921, a successful coup d'état was launched by the head of the Cossack Brigade – Colonel Reza Khan, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty against the corruption and ineptitude of the last Qajar King, the virtual colonization of Iran by Britain and Russia and internal anarchy. ..." Note please that I am citing not only the fact that this was called a coup but also the most negative possible assessment of the last Qajar ruler by Mr. Amezougar! I will also add the book by my very dear friend Dr. Homa Katouzian, State and Society: The Eclipse of the Qajars and the Emergence of the Pahlavis (I.B. Tauris 2006) who discusses the 1921 coup in great detail as well as the shortcomings of Soltan Ahmad Shah, a matter about which I obviously disagree. I have also already cited the book by my dear colleague Dr. Stephanie Cronin, and referred you to the book of the greatest detractor of the last Qajar ruler and greatest cheerleader for the Pahlavis, Mr. Cyrus Ghani, who also refers to the takeover of 1921 as "the coup." I do not know what else to say. I am afraid you are alone in this interpretation, and only the weirdest Pahlavi hagiography would refer to the events of 1921 and 1925 as not a coup. Beyond that I am at a loss and do beg your forgiveness as I will not be able to spend more time on this rather unessential matter.

With all good wishes, Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar

Mr.Eskandari

It is very convenient for you to hide behind other people's skirts!

If it was a coup d'etat -- how come it took 4 years for the regime change?

now you can go back to your class room and peddle the same old tired lessons

Good bye.

Bahramerad -

Coup d'etat's aside, at least the Qajars left Iran with a Monarch in power. One cannot say the same thing for the Pahlavi's.

As far as skirts, it looks like you are only interested in making shameless stabs and creating message's and webpages which are schizophrenic in nature. All in some vain, futile attempt to be favored in some less favorable quarters.

About me, I am named in places which matter. Places which have brought me in the company of foreign governments, sitting monarchs, fortune 500 presidents and a few billionaires. I dont feel the need to name drop, or put large pictures of some person I hope to impress to make a point or to make myself look or feel important.

The only thing I see tiring on this page is your ignorance, and obvious skirt wearing.

Former and always a student.
I do not know where you are coming from or where you are going -- and I don't really care who you are sleeping or hobnobbing with at the moment -- or for that matter what you are getting at.
All I know is that you are very nauseating and obviously have a chip on your shoulder the size of mount Everest.
If you cannot keep to the subject -- then just shut you gob.

I see you forget to mention about the Qajars and Pahlavi's

And Iran was left better after the Qajars than after the Pahlavi's!

You can't even heed your own advice about staying on the subject.

Maybe you should keep your gob shut.

PS I don't shrines on the internet to various causes. I prefer to actually contribute. Maybe you should try this and do something productive. Instead of spreading your venom on the internet to a few.

I took a political science class with Eskandari at SBCC in 2002. I have since transferred to San Diego State, graduated with a BS in computer Science (2006) and currently working in San Diego.

Whenever I get nostalgic with friends or old classmates and talk about favorite professors, I chime in immediately with Eskandari. This always seems bizarre with friends and old classmates that my favorite professor was one not even in my own major.

However, at any rate, it is my opinion that some people leaving comments here have a political agenda, and while my knowledge of Iranian history is limited or better yet, non-existent, I feel it is somewhat absurd that others feel it necessary to undermine and question Eskandari's heritage and historical past.

Side note, I just found my old my book, "Social And Political Philosophy" and thumbed through it. The damn thing was full of old notes. The handwriting completely ineligible but clearly recognizable as my own, highlighting throughout, with a dense concentration on Plato's "The Republic".

Cheers Eskandari, and maybe someday I will get the chance to take another class up at SBCC with you.

This is for the students of Mr. Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar-
Others might have -- but I have not disrespected or said anything against this man regarding what kind of a man he is or whether he is a good or bad teacher (as I do not really know him or have ever had the misfortune of being one of his students).
I have merely pointed out the circumstances that lead to the replacement of the Qajar dynasty with the Pahlavi dynasty in 1924 - and as this process took at least from 1894 to 1924 - and specifically from 1921 to 1924 - questions the validity of calling it a "coup d'etat."
Every regime change is not due to a coup d'etat and in this respect -- telling the truth is important for understanding modern Iranian history.