Farah Pahlavi, Empress of Iran, is the widow of the last Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Before her marriage, she studied architecture at the École Spéciale d’Architecture in Paris. After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, she continued in her deep and abiding devotion to charitable work. Today, she divides her time between Paris and Washington, D.C.
Your Majesty, I believe that your first experience of Europe was quite early in life. Your family also had extensive experience in Europe. Your grandfather had been in the court of St. Petersburg, then the capital of the Russian Empire. Your father had been here in France, at Saint-Cyr, a military school. What was your first taste of Europe, and what did you think of life in Europe and Paris?
First of all, I wanted to thank you for your interest in talking to me—and not only to me, but about my life and my country. Of course, it was very important for me to study here in Europe. There were in those days many students who wanted to come to Europe to study, and I was one of them. In Iran, we had separate schools for boys and girls. The school for girls was called Jeanne d’Arc, and it was run by French nuns. I went to that school, where they taught French and Persian. The boys’ school was called Saint Louis. It was run by Catholic priests, also teaching in both Persian and French. Before that, I was in an Italian school, but I was also learning French and Persian. I attended Razi School, a co-ed institution, for the last three years of high school. Later, when I studied in France, I was happy to do so, given how important it was then to go to colleges outside of Iran to study.
Strangely, in that period, more than sixty years ago, I wanted to study architecture. In those days, there were very few women architects; and in Iran, specifically, there was only one. I came to Paris because I knew people here, and I was staying at the Collège néerlandais, a Dutch institution in the south of Paris. Of course, when I got married, I asked His Majesty to also build the Iranian pavilion, which we did.
So I went to school for architecture. We were in ateliers, and then there were maybe 40 boys and only six or seven girls. And the boys used to say that the girls were only coming to architecture to find a husband, which was funny. I certainly liked architecture. I didn’t want to study something to be in a room behind the desk and not move. I have liked architecture since I was a child. We were in a garden, and I was building little houses out of mud. And my uncle was an architect, too. Then I came to the École Speciale d’Architecture in Paris. And, when His Late Majesty divorced [Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s second wife, Queen Soraya of Iran], I remember the boys saying, “Why not you? You’re not bad. You’re cute.” I said, “Well then, why don’t you write to him?” And they would answer, “If he marries you, will you invite us to Iran?” I said, “Of course I will,” and, of course, it happened, and I invited a few of them to Iran.
It was in Paris that you first met His Late Majesty, the Emperor?
The first time, yes. I remember seeing him from afar in Iran when the Russians invaded our province of Azerbaijan. His Majesty had liberated that province. He was driving, of course, in an open car. I must have been eight or nine years old. We went to see him somewhere, and as he passed, we waved to him. But the first time we met in person was when he was in Paris to visit the Iranian students who were in the city. I was invited to go to the embassy. I was introduced to him, and he asked me what I did. And it was a little strange for him that a girl was studying architecture. And then, afterwards, when I went to Iran for holidays, my paternal uncle was working at the imperial court. He knew the son-in-law of the Shah [Ardeshir Zahedi], who was married to the Shah’s daughter [Princess Shahnaz] by his first wife, Princess Fawzia of Egypt.
My uncle suggested introducing me to the Shah’s son-in-law in order to get a scholarship for my studies. I said yes. We went to see him, and he said, “Why don’t you come and meet my wife, Princess Shanaz?” I went there, and suddenly the Shah came. I thought: ‘Okay, he has come to see his daughter.’ He spoke to me very simply. I was also very pro-monarchy. We were pro-Shah and loved him. We had his pictures in our house. The Shah and I started talking about me, about what I did—about anything, really. Once and twice, and then day after day. And then, finally, he said, “I have been married twice; would you like to marry me?”
Did you ever imagine such a thing happening? It must have been so surprising to the family, and to your friends.
No, because when I was young—I mean, at the age of getting married—some people in my family were saying that it would be good if she marries this and that. But my goal was to study, return to Iran, and serve my country.
After your wedding in 1959, what was your role in the day-to-day life of government? Was Iran something like a diarchy, in which you shared much of the government’s work, initiatives, ideas, and vision for the country? I ask because your role in so many areas was monumental.
When I got married, they were inviting me to visit hospitals and orphanages here and there. But I always wanted to work and do something. I was not at all interfering in politics or in government. Still, some people came to me—compatriots, men and women—to share their problems. We also created many private organisations, which, although accepted by the government, were not government departments. My God, we established more than 25 different organisations for health problems, for the visually challenged, the verbally challenged, the handicapped, and the mentally ill.
And universities.
Universities, too. Universities, of course, existed, but we also helped them. And we created organisations for lepers, and for those who had suffered from burns. There were many, many activities. We were discussing how to support them making sure we got some help from the government, and also from some private people. So I really was busy the whole day in those fields.
Were you—not necessarily from a purely political point of view—engaging in political affairs? You were travelling around Iran day and night. You were—and I’ve seen dozens of those videos—visiting tiny villages, new schools, and new institutions that had been opened in the far ends of the country, areas that were often very remote and very poor. You had daily contact with the reality of Iran.
It is my joy that I travelled around Iran, and went to many places. I went there, especially so that I could be close to the people, talking to the peasants and to ordinary people, and then coming and telling His Majesty what I saw. Of course, the ministers were also there; they always wanted to give more positive evaluations of what they were doing. But I was telling them what I saw and what I did without interfering with the government. I was telling everything to His Majesty, and one of my joys was that I travelled around Iran in many places.
I would imagine that few people in the world would know the country as well as you, given this vast programme of visits. Of course, Iran had a very important international profile, and its profile was rapidly rising as the country developed. During those years, the country was becoming more self-assured, more independent and convinced of its own strength in the international arena. Were you involved in diplomatic life?
Before answering this, I wanted to tell you about my cultural activities, because I very much believe in culture. I still believe today that culture is very important for Iran. We created many museums, which, fortunately, still exist today; they are different museums for contemporary art, for the Iranian carpet, and for the art of our ancient dynasties, not to mention the Center for Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults, and also more that 1,000 libraries for youngsters and adolescents. We also created the Shiraz Art Festival, which was very important. And for me, art was very important. I was very much involved in that.
And, of course, the many visits to more than 20 countries around the world were, for me, very interesting. My God, when I remember the number of countries we visited with over 20 kings, queens, presidents, and heads of state … We also met many artists, musicians, painters, sculptors and filmmakers. It’s a great wealth, really, to have done that.
Who impressed you the most as part of this very intense diplomatic life? You met so many heads of state and government, as well as other influential figures of the last decades. Certainly, many of them were particularly remarkable individuals.
It isn’t that easy for me to name them, but I met many kings and queens, and also some presidents who I cannot name. I have to talk about President Sadat of Egypt because I admired him very much. And we are grateful to him, as you know, that when all the rest of the countries were not accepting us after what happened in Iran, he was the one who did. I remember Mrs. Sadat telling me that President Sadat didn’t want to talk to Jimmy Carter anymore due to Carter’s policy towards the Shah. He told his aide and Mr. Mubarak to talk to him. And he had said to President Carter, “Jimmy, I want the Shah here and alive.” This was also because of the friendship between our two countries: when Egypt had problems, Iran helped them a lot. So that was part of it.
Still, naming leaders is difficult. As I said, President Sadat was one of them. Others would be King Hussein of Jordan, King Hassan of Morocco, and many other people.
What about the Shah? Who, among all contemporary figures, among all those men of influence and power, was the man—or the lady—whom he most admired in a political sense?
I think the late Shah very much liked King Hussein of Jordan. And, of course, we were close to the Pakistanis. His Majesty really admired countries that were in our situation—countries that were getting better.
Some say that the Shah’s father, Reza Shah, saw President Atatürk of Turkey as something of a role model.
Yes, it’s true, because in that period, Turkey was developing very much, and Atatürk was also working very hard for his country. Turkey was the only country that Reza Shah visited, and he admired it very much.
I always think of that most remarkable event, the great 2,500-year anniversary of the monarchy in Iran—effectively of the country—in which virtually all of the heads of state and government were invited to participate. Few countries were left out in this magnificent, impressive, and really stunning celebration. Were you involved in the preparations?
In some of it, of course. There were people organising all the details. There were also gatherings with me around the table to talk about details and so on, because it was a great event. Can you believe that so many people around the world—kings and queens and presidents, from the free countries and the communist countries—all came to Persepolis, which is such a great place of civilisation, to celebrate history? But, unfortunately, in those days, the foreign press was against us, and I will tell you why: they were criticising all the details. Europe and the world were criticising these festivities, and they didn’t imagine that all those people—heads of state, kings and queens—from all around the world would come to Iran to celebrate Persepolis. They did plenty of publicity against it, unfortunately.
I’m not saying that there were not some mistakes and that we shouldn’t have done this and that. And, unfortunately, you know what happened in Iran. I’m not saying we didn’t have problems. I’m not saying we didn’t have shortcomings. But the country developed so much in every field, really. And I remember that most of the criticism came after 1973. The exploitation and sale of Iranian oil were transferred into the hands of the National Iranian Oil Company. That’s what started all the criticism against Iran, because they always wanted to have our oil.
Do you think that was the real reason for such criticism?
No, no, because we had shortcomings, in terms of political freedom. To combine an English and a French saying, “If wishes were horses, you could put Paris in a bottle.” It’s normal that I now think, “If only we had done this or that differently…” But the country had developed so much! I’m not saying we didn’t have problems. But, really, in the 20 years in which I was the Empress of that country, I saw what happened. And if it were politically more open—I mean, we had parties that could support us because those who were against us were not allowed to have parties. I’m referring now to those who called themselves the Mujahideen [Mojahedin-e-Khalq], who were communist-Islamic, and also the communists [the Tudeh party], the Maoists, and some of the groups who had approved of Dr. Mossadegh.
But the communists were not organised. If they came out in the streets shouting, “Long live Lenin!” or “Long live Stalin!,” nobody would come. “Allah akbar” was more important. And also, unfortunately, this is what has happened in our country. As I said, we had problems. But if we didn’t have one political party [the pro-Shah single party Rastakhiz, founded by Prime Minister Amir-Abbas Hoveyda following the dissolution of all other political parties in 1975—Ed.], if we had two different political parties, at least friends could be organised against enemies. Instead, we were not organised, and we can now see what has happened. And though it’s been 45 years now; I cannot believe it. But I don’t lose hope.
I always want to remain positive about the future of Iran, especially now that people have realised what happened—in particular, young people. They [the current Iranian authorities] put so much nonsense in the heads of young people while in school. But now, with the internet and so on, and even if the government cuts the internet, the people can know what Iran was like before. And, more and more, there are people in favour of what His Majesty did. I call some of them, and it touches me very much that even during my life I can enjoy this sort of positive reaction. I call under some alias—Leila, or I don’t know the name—and it makes me very happy, and it makes them happy. This is very important for me because, usually, history judges people long after they are dead. But since I’m alive, I hear positive things about His Late Majesty and it touches me very much.
Do you regularly call Iranians in Iran?
I receive a lot of emails, and I answer them, or my office answers them. Lately, they have cut the telephones, so it’s difficult. But I’m also worried for them, because sometimes I call and say, “I’m called Jale,” and they answer, “Hello, Shabanou!” And I say, “No, don’t say Shabanou!” But they say they don’t care. Lately, I have not done that because I’m really busy the whole day. But we send messages, and so on, on different occasions.
In so many areas, in social policy, and in agricultural policy—with the White Revolution—the transformation of Iranian society in those years was just immense. Might the changes have been too fast?
I don’t think so, because those who came to the streets against us were mostly so-called intellectuals, university students, and so on. The villagers, of course, were happy: before [the White Revolution], they had a landowner; now, the land belonged to them, and the soil belonged to them. Of course, there were protests by religious people, but not as much. It was mostly in towns, with students or university professors.
Now, I don’t think the pace of reform was too fast, because the people wanted more and more. And, of course, there were many reforms. There were organisations, like the Pahlavi Foundation, that were sending Iranian students outside to study. Of course, when they came from a small town to a city like Paris or Washington, they wanted Iran to become like that. And yet, they turned against the monarchy. How is that possible? No, I don’t think it was too fast. What the Iranian people wanted was to go forward more and more.
It seems as if you and the late Shah were being pressured by both sides: some were saying that things were being done too fast or that they shouldn’t be going in that modernising direction at all, and some were blaming the monarchy and the government for not doing enough; they wanted things to go even faster. It was obviously a very tricky balance to find. But until a relatively late moment in the Shah’s reign, there were acceptable, if not good, relations between the monarchy and the clergy—better than under the late Shah’s father and predecessor, Reza Shah, when the relationship was truly very difficult.
He was right. Reza Shah was right. Yes, it was close, and maybe it was close because of the communists. I remember that one of the most important clerics was sending messages to His Majesty, saying “Don’t believe in this or that clerical leader.” He himself was an important cleric, but he warned against some of these people. Of course, when Ayatollah Khomeini came, he promised much to the people. When you think about these issues now, as I said to you, “If wishes were horses, you could put Paris in a bottle.” But there is no use in saying how things would have been if we had done this and that. It’s unbelievable. When Khomeini came to Paris—and I don’t say they shouldn’t have shown respect to religious people or to religion—but for him to come to Paris with so much publicity that the BBC was even broadcasting his messages. The BBC!
In the last years of his reign—and, I believe, even after the events of 1978-1979—the Shah repeatedly expressed his belief that, perhaps because Iran was becoming powerful, developed, independent, and taking its own decisions without considering the demands of other powers, he was becoming less popular among Western governments. Is that your understanding of what happened?
Yes. As I told you, there were many other things. But that was also important. The way we were talking was, maybe, too much. We shouldn’t have done that. That pleased neither the Americans nor the Europeans. It didn’t please the strong countries. Maybe that didn’t help.
Having said that, the West’s criticism against us began in 1973, when the exploration, the production, the refineries, and, then, the export and pricing of oil were transferred from mostly Western corporations to the National Iranian Oil Company on the orders of the Shah. That irritated many of the Western powers and is one of the reasons for the criticism.
What really triggered the events of 1978 and 1979? I can think, for instance, of General Hossein Fardoust, who, as far as I understand, was a good friend of the Shah for many years, but after the Revolution, he joined the new Islamic authorities. Was there, to a degree at least, an inside coup against the imperial family?
For people like him, for instance, who were so close to His Majesty from childhood, to say what he had said, it shows that he turned against His Majesty at the end. There are many things that I was told about His Late Majesty Reza Shah [Mohammad Reza Shah’s father], which I don’t remember—but apparently, when His Majesty was young and Fardoust was his friend, Reza Shah didn’t like him. That goes back to 90 years ago. It’s strange that someone who was close to His Majesty at the court told me that Reza Shah didn’t like Fardoust, even though Fardoust was then the closest person to the Shah. When we wanted to have a real report on something, we would ask him, not anyone else. But I also think that people who were in the government, in the secret services, and so on were against the Shah, and that they were doing things against His Majesty’s interests.
Was there a long-standing conspiracy against His Majesty’s government by these individuals who, for several years before the Islamic Revolution, were opposing the Shah?
Some of the people surrounding the Shah did not want to take responsibility. I don’t mean everybody. But there were such cases, and they would always say that “His Majesty did this and that,” and “His Majesty said this and that,” thus putting everything on His Majesty‘s shoulders. Maybe in those days we didn’t realise what was happening, unfortunately. In the end, nevertheless, I’m not saying that we didn’t have shortcomings, but not to the point that would justify having these people in power.
Among those, for instance, General Fardoust was the deputy chief of the intelligence services of the Empire of Iran [SAVAK]. How do you view the role of those services? There has been a lot of criticism: is it entirely just? Or might it have been exaggerated?
Some of it is exaggerated. But some of it is true. They made mistakes. They did things which were ultimately not in favour of the monarchy or His Majesty.
What was the end result of the great transformative process Iran was experiencing? For instance, could Iran have been transformed into a parliamentary democracy, like those in Europe, during the Shah’s lifetime?
I must say that, during the 20 years in which I was the Empress of Iran, there were so many positive things that happened. And I was really very proud of what was happening in the country. I must say, also, that His Majesty was not feeling well [the Shah suffered from cancer for the last years of his reign—Ed.]. Maybe, with hindsight, we could say that he didn’t have the strength to see what was happening. And I’m really not saying that we didn’t have shortcomings—but not to the point that these people should have come to power in Iran, a country with such a great civilisation, with so much.
Iran was once ahead of the rest of the world; they didn’t even exist. And what have we become? It’s unbelievable. We had queens—Irandokht, Purandokht—thousands of years ago. They were real, reigning queens. And look at what they do now to Iranian women. Fortunately, I must say that Iranian women are very courageous. Have you seen how they take their veils off?
Can you describe your personal view of the concept of great civilisation, which you and the late Shah envisioned for Iran?
As you know, we are a country with such a great civilisation, and we were developing. We were hoping that would develop in every field, in all the different fields, and also in matters of freedom and democracy. We were hoping that we could reach that goal, but, unfortunately, it didn’t happen because of shortcomings and some mistakes. What can I say? Iran didn’t deserve such a situation, really. Not the Iranian people.
You have obviously seen some very difficult moments in life. Have art and culture, which you were alluding to earlier in our conversation, been a fortress to you, a reason for strength in the face of adversity?
Yes, in a way. You know, in my personal fight against the Islamic Republic—I don’t say I’m alone—my fight was to remain positive, not to be negative. And art is very important. Art will have its result now, even though they have forbidden everything, even some of the music. They’ve stopped books. One of the great things we did was the Center for Culture and the Development of Children and Young Adults, which was publishing books. We had thousands of libraries in Iran. And although they have forgotten to do this, more and more people in Iran go to see art. There are so many art galleries—more than in our time, because even now people are allowed to go there. Some painters are forbidden, of course. Films are forbidden. Musicians are forbidden, but they still make music. And also, there are so many songs now, all of them for freedom in Iran—so many songs that, fortunately, I can listen to on the internet. This shows how much art is important and how much it’s important for Iranians. Art will overcome this horrible regime.
Do you believe that beauty can be transformative?
Yes, yes. Beauty is something that everybody wants. You look at the sky, at the moonlight. I look at the trees, and it makes me happy. I embrace trees. And I tell my grandchildren to do that, too. For me, nature is very important. And beauty will help, because what’s happening now in our country, under this regime, is ugly. It’s horrible. And the Iranian people do not deserve this.
Do you remain optimistic for Iran? Where do you see Iran in 10, 15, 20, and 50 years?
I see a free Iran. I will not be there then. But I see a free Iran where people will visit and admire the country, the people, and the culture. My strength is to be positive, not negative.
What lessons does a country with such a rich history—the oldest continuously existing nation on earth—have to share with the world?
Iran has given so much to the world. I don’t remember everything they have said about Iran. It’s written in America, in the streets, in the United Nations, and so on. And, now, more and more Iranian people want the world to know what Iran was, because many people who were born after the Iranian Islamic Revolution don’t know what Iran used to be. That is especially so in America. Some people don’t even know what Iran is. They have no idea. Of course, Europeans know more about Iran.
I want to remain positive. When I speak about art, I will show you. You may see that there is a golden piece under the table, as well as something in silver. Can you give it to me, and I will show it? [We hand Her Majesty the two heavy, shiny objects.] You know, a few years ago there were demonstrations against the Islamic Republic: people were throwing stones and pieces of asphalt at the Guardians of the Revolution [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Ed.]. And so people sent me this indirectly, as they don’t know my address. They sent me this as a piece of art. This is a piece of asphalt that they threw at the head of the Islamic Republic. The stones say street so and so, stone number 2000. And, you see, they sent this to me—it’s a sign of art.
Or, for instance, you may see that crown. [The Empress points at a delicate, crown-shaped statue near us.] It has Shahbanou [Empress in Persian—Ed.] written on it. They don’t know my address, but they send it indirectly, and it touches me very much. What can I say? Speaking of that, this [Her Majesty points at yet another nearby sculpture] was given to me by a gentleman. It’s a tree of peace. He gave it to me a few days ago. And it really touches me very much. All these things have encouraged me to remain positive.
Obviously, you remain deeply connected on a constant, permanent basis to the people of Iran. In the 1970s, there was a CIA report about the late Shah. One of the things that it said was that the Iranian people overwhelmingly loved the Shah and the Empress. Do a good share of Iranians remain loyal to the same feelings today?
I really cannot tell you a percentage. But I know what I see on the internet and other sources. There are so many positive things and interviews about His Majesty. Of course, there have been so many negative things said about him. I can’t, frankly, tell you, about percentages, but there is a lot of sympathy for His Late Majesty.
Iran was always a monarchy; the history of Iran is the history of its kings and queens. It has been like this for 25 centuries. Is Iran as an idea, as a polity, possible without this connection to the past, to its history, through the institution of the monarchy?
Well, you see what my son, Prince Reza, believes in and what he says he wants: freedom, democracy, freedom for women, to safeguard the national identity of Iran, and to secure Iranian territorial integrity. And then, if one day Iranians are free, it will be up to them to choose what they want. That’s really what we want, including myself. Of course, I believe in monarchy, and monarchies in the world have been exemplary. But what we really want is, like my son says, freedom and the unity of the country. It’s up to the people to decide what they want. As for the imperial family, what we want is the end of this regime.
I thank Your Majesty very much indeed for the privilege of this wonderful conversation, which deeply honours me and The European Conservative.
Thank you so much. I wanted to add that, as you may know, I have created a cultural foundation in Portugal. And I would like to speak about that. Why Portugal? Because I have thousands of books here and in America, as well as hundreds of paintings that people offered to me, objects, and many thousands of pictures, too. After me, my children cannot keep this. I thought, therefore, that I would create a cultural foundation. I didn’t want to do it in America. It was difficult in France. A friend of mine then told me, ‘Why not in Portugal?’ So it’s in Portugal. I’m gathering help from people. The foundation has been created, and one of Lisbon’s universities has even given me a large room for it. Of course, my enemies have spoken so much about the billions that the Shah supposedly had—and I don’t have them, of course. If we had them, I would not be sitting here. I would be in Iran. Now I have to gather some help to really start this foundation and to send all of this to Portugal: as I said, books, paintings, pictures, and so on. I hope that before I leave this world, I will be able to do it.
Would you see this as a great and permanent embassy of Iran to the rest of the world?
Yes. Yes, because when my people send me books or other artefacts, they will be put to good use. Actually, one of the projects we have is to help Portuguese young men learn Persian and Iranian history. And when we have the organisation they will be able to find ideas to help deepen Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world.
I can think of few things more wonderful for Portugal—and I speak as a very proud and patriotic Portuguese—than to receive this extraordinary gift.
I hope so. I hope that before I leave this world I am able to do it. But even after me, I hope that my children or my son will do it.
