[Vigilanteman]

From what I understand, the Shah was trying to do for Iran what Ataturk did for Turkey-- give the country freedom of religion and remove the Islamist stranglehold on the government.

Someday, Iran may well rename themselves Persia and many will return to the logical religion of that great Empire before Islam was imposed by the sword. Aren't the Baha's an attempt to harmonize Zorastism (which was also the religion of the three kings who visited the Christ child), Islam, Christianity and Judaism?

I also heard the name Persia was changed to Iran during World War II to placate Hitler as it meant the land of the Aryans. True or urban legand?

[freedom44]

Iran literally means 'land of the aryans'. But aryan not in the sense of what Hitler preached, but of the historical indo-european tribe. Of which both Iranians and Germans were a part.

And the Bahai's are a blend of the three, but they're more strict with their faith than even Muslims.

I'd much rather deal with moderate Muslims which are growing extensively in Iranian culture rather than Bahais.

I think when a revolution happens in Iran radical Islam is going to receive quite a blow and khoemini's burial site will get the bomb

[Doctor Stochastic]

Urban legend. The name was changed in the 1930s by Reza Shah.

The Bahai's are followers of the Bab, another (ultimate, of course) prophet from the 1800s.

[valkyrieanne]

From what I understand, the Shah was trying to do for Iran what Ataturk did for Turkey-- give the country freedom of religion and remove the Islamist stranglehold on the government.

The Shah's *father* (a contemporary of Ataturk) did indeed have that goal. But from the little I've read, he was of a different temperament than Ataturk and didn't want to lower the iron fist as Ataturk did.

For instance, Ataturk simply banned the fez (men's hat) and women's head scarf. You wore one in public - boom - in the slammer, and I can't imagine Turkish prisons being better then than now.

By contrast, the Shah's father tried to "lead by example" back in the 1930s-1940s, and so he paraded his wife and daughters out in Western clothes. Apparently the Persians were not impressed and continued to wear the traditional garb. I think it's a matter of psychology - what *could* be changed by force was not changeable by persuasion. Perhaps if Shah Sr. had been more forceful, Iran might have been different. Or maybe not.