Trilingual, when including Persian. 

That may have helped him to deal with all the snakes that he came accross his life. 

His Majesty never read a book, but wrote two... You can't go more irooni than that...

Comrade Razi Tazi Mini Lonely Atom Pendar-e Neek Republican, you strike me as an individual who has neither read nor written any books. Ergo, you cannot be irooni. Quod erat demonstrandum. 

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" That is history's one-sentence verdict on all dictators, who stay in power for years and decades and change from benevolent to megalomaniac.

Who is to be blamed for the collapse of an absolute dictatorship like Shah's Iran? The absolute dictator himself of course! During the 1970's Iran, all the controls were in Shah's hands. He was in control of the only political party. He was in control of all the oil money. His savak was in control of all the media, etc etc. Therefore, the failure of that fully controlled system (yes, even Shah's ministers and army chiefs did not have a shred of independence) should be fully blamed on the chief controller, the Shah!  

People of Iran were controlled and manipulated by the Shah and his media on a daily basis. The product was an angry mob with very little informaion and very little knowledge about political alternatives. Hell, we had not even heard Khomeini's voice even once, before he entered Tehran. The first day that we saw him lecture, we were shocked.  

The same thing has happened in Libya, Syria and Iraq, Romania, Serbia and Albania, and the same thing can happen to IRI. All I am saying is that feeling pity for the dictators who lead their country into an impasse, is wrong. Otherwise, start feeling pity for Khamenei.

Shazde jaan,

I agree with some of what you say, but I wanted to share something. Back in 2004 (when I was a young man with a "young man's" politics -- lol), I wrote an email to the journalist Amir Taheri, who was the editor-in-chief of Kayhan in the 1970s. I've cut-and-paste his response to me below. At the time, I thought he was wrong, but as I've gotten older, I've found I tend to agree with him more. Here is his response to my email:

"A number of people were executed in Iran under the Shah, notably leaders of
the secessionists in Azerbaijan and Kurdistan in 1946. ( 19 in total), and
Tudeh Party  military officers ( seven in all) in 1953. ( You realise that I
was a child at that time and not editor of Kahn).
Later, in the 1970s a number of militants, often linked with leftist and/or
Islamist guerrilla groups, were executed in accordance with the existing
laws.
These were executions, not murders.
It is also true that some unarmed demonstrators died in clashes with
security forces.
But those, too, could not be regarded as murder. A better term would be "
killed", mostly by accident because the troops deployed had no experience in
crowd control. This could happen anywhere, including in the United States,
but does not amount to " murder" as you suggest.
In any case I am not , and never was, a spokesman for the Pahlavi dynasty or
the SAVAK or any other organ of the Iranian state.
Needless to say I deeply regret that violence, whether against the regime or
by the regime, had to be used in the context of our politics, and wrote many
articles about the subject.
But Iran, like many other Third World countries, was caught between forces
that would give each other no quarters. This created a vicious circle in
which the opponents of the regime used violence against it, including three
attempts to kill the Shah, and the regime, in exchange, used violence
against them, thus breeding even greater violence.
This was part of our national tragedy: we could never develop an atmosphere
in which normal politics could be practised. And in that the fault is shared
by all: the regime, its many opponents, and the intellectuals.,
As a journalist I  broadly supported the Shah's regime because I was
convinced, and still am, that his was the best of the bad choices we had in
Iran. The other choices were : Khomeinism, Soviet-sponsored Communism,
Mujahedinisim, and various brands of infantile leftist guerrillas.
In 1979 there were only two camps in Iran: one  sided with Khomeini and
included all those who had opposed the Shah for over three decades, the
other with the Shah.
At that time I still preferred the Shah.
You may think I was wrong, and favour Khomeini. I respect your view.
But you, too, should understand and respect my judgement."

You are soooooooooo full of it that your green avatar is turning brownnnnnnn! Shave them &oon o capal of yours since Trump is coming after you!