the stories down. one after another they were very personal, heartwarming, compelling stories. and i just felt that if i could share them with people, you know, year in north carolina as well as around the world in the country they might take a look and say, we can do this. i want to do this. and they can. and they could. wherever they live. kansas, arkansas, made. that is exactly what is happening. >> for more permission on book tv recent visit go to c-span.org / local content. ..

dr. milani, when was shot in power? >> guest: he was in power from 1941 and lifted 1879 in deep his feet to ayatollah khomeini unwillingly as a result the revolution, a revolution i argue in the book was hijacked by the

cleric that was supposed to lead to a clerical despotism. it was a movement against the people thought. he came to power when his father was pushed out of power, when the allied forces occupied 1941 and they were worried that shah was too too friendly to the nazis. when the soviet army suffered this defeat, and we became critical of the iranian world that connected the persian gulf would enable the ally to resupply the army so occupied

iran became essential. getting rid of the nazis became essential. almost rebut -- >> host: reluctantly so? >> guest: he was not that time anticipating the dissent of the throne. he wasn't anticipating he was going to be virtually occupied country. finally, my son and i try to convey in the book that he really wasn't by inclination of the demand. he was not someone who had the drive that his father had come under basically grabbed the throne and made it his own. he was very weak inside, but also pretended to be very

strong. he was the hair that grows like lion. headers that ride the lines make that politicians. reluctant the modernizing leader who came to power at a very crucial time, and a very critical piece of real estate. he ran as truman, fdr, eisenhower, kennedy, nixon, literally all the president has said it was one of the most important countries. those are the days of the cold war. iran had 2500 kilometers in the soviet union or the soviet union was known to try to get into the persian gulf, get his hands on the persian gulf are keeping iran out of the soviet lots of hand was very critical. iran is almost by consensus when

the cold war began. so you have a young man, comes to very critical throne in a troubled land with the rise of communist movement, supported by the soviet union. so while this made it very interesting and critical. >> host: you mentioned shakespeare a couple times. dr. milani come you begin each chapter with a quote from king richard. why? >> guest: they are is first of all i love shakespeare, but i found striking similarities between both the characters of this vacillation between authority when he felt powerful and absolute weakness when he

felt besieged. going from one extreme to the other with almost no in between, that's usually the carrot or the shaw house. because from the height of his power, where he spends 150, $200 million to invite all the heads of state coming remember the 2500 year monarchy in iran, where he literally threatened president ford verbally to someone within a year and half couldn't make a single decision without prior approval of the american ambassador. richard strahan is on the whole question of fine legitimacy whether to fine legitimacy can be assisting phenomena in the modern agents question by shakespeare, with some brilliant

lines and richards has coming out, it can kill me, you can get rid of me, but god has anointed, the people took away the throne that richard and the shaw were both taught to regard skit. >> host: throughout 1941 to 1979, of this year's, how many of them did he have to answer to the british commit to the americans, to another authority prior to making big decisions? >> guest: i think from 1941 to 1964, he is in the words of the american ambassador at the time he worked the united states. he has to insert to the british comedy americans. there's very little he can do without prior approval. he's dependent on their health. the u.s. put in almost a billion

dollars from 1953 to 1962 when iran was probably second or first recipient of foreign aid in that. good so when you have the purse come you have the power to dictate. the united states told them how much money spend on military, with us to do. ironically, independents that oil money got him, i think proved to be his undoing because first of all he became arrogant. he no longer had to listen to americans who kept advising to the entire period of his reign that he should open up the system. you should democratize company should bring the middle-class and many have all the money in the world after hiking the price of oil, he didn't feel like the americans. furthermore, with that money, he

really changed her man. it was now middle-class and was a large urban working class they brought with them from the villages, conservative cultural values. there is no force in the country that was allowed to participate to mobilize this multimillion force. the only force that was allowed to work in these neighborhoods in these areas were the clergy. so when the system went into crisis and not surprisingly the clergy were the ones that have the political muscle to win, to essentially appease this movement i was hoping to create a democracy that ended up creating theocracy. >> host: abbas milani, did the shaw always had a tenuous relationship with the mullahs?

>> guest: that's a very interesting question. i think one of the lesser-known aspects of this character appeared on the one hand, he picked a big fight in 1963 when khomeini came to the national stage and he eventually exiled from iran and it was khomeini that came back to see him. but the shot, as you probably know fled iran in 1953 and the help of the clergy and the americans and the british committee was brought back to power. so he had this fraught relationship. while you despise radical clergy, he felt that the rest of the clergy, the body religious are his allies in the fight that he thought was the determining site at the time, the same idea

at the time that is popular in the united states, communism was the main threat in any force want to stand up to the communists is a potential ally of the united states. that's why he had to scorches palos the while everybody else allow these guys to continue organizing, having elementary schools, collecting funds, creating mosques, creating virtually every university. it is really remarkable, this tolerance towards religious organization as compared to the moderate. >> host: was the ever popular among the iranian people?

>> guest: he certainly was popular when he came to power. many people thought of him as visteon, western educated. he had the reputation of wanting to have a more democratic politics than his father did. he was popular from 41 to 51, 52. ben has very tense relationship with the head of the nationalist movement and the fact that he fled and came back i think damaged his popularity. but after 62, 63, when he really began to make these reforms, by giving women the right to vote enfranchisement of a woman into

the political system. all of these things make them more popular in my view around 65 to 73, 74, the neck to his head. he abolished the political party system, created a one-party system and then he became to lose both his popularity and that he was also his back. he got canned there. he was diagnosed with cancer in 73. they decided to hide this beauty radiant people never knew he had cancer. >> host: you write in your book, "the shah" the chapter called the perfect storm. it is hard to pinpoint the moment at which the unwieldy coalition that eventually overthrew the shah began to coalesce. one thing is certain. president carter's human rights

policies had an impact reinvigorating department democratic and. >> guest: one of the things that's not in the boat but everett about it in an earlier book. when jimmy carter became president, i was under the shaw. overnight, present conditions began to change. overnight, torture ended. overnight, we understood as an internationalist is coming that begin to clean up the prison and began to issue new blanket and society at large, the same changes were being felt. and present lisa collet not the rise of democracy. we used to call it democracy for jimmy carter. people felt the shaw is now

under pressure from jimmy carter to open up the system. all of these suppressed pressures for democratic participation. you can create a middle class, a technocratic class. we can't create a technocratic class as the shah had done and then expect they don't demand share of power. when jimmy carter came from the people thought the shah is no longer going to be able to be as tough as the then and they proved to be right. >> host: i really political prisoner? >> guest: i was young. i was in berkeley and the radicalism of the age was very easy to catch in nfl that iran did not have a government we deserve to. we needed a more democratic

government. it is a leftist at the time, but the kinds of idealism that drove many in that area to demand a more just and more democratic government is what got me involved when i went back to the universe three after a year and a half, the police caught up with me and i spent a year in prison. but maybe are particularly interesting is six-month of the list with the people who went about 18 months become virtually the entire top clerical class unless ng, these are now the three most important people in

iran. i spent six months at them. >> host: abbas milani, squirted some catchup with two clicks what was was that like? >> guest: sabbagh cuddy group of intellectuals who had a meeting that was literally the level effect dvd. we met and discussed politics, but organizing was not at the time, particularly greatest ideas. they came and arrested me and took me to -- >> host: were you at the university? for you at home? >> guest: at the time when they arrested me, i was meeting the minister of education and he was a colleague at the university and he invited me to

his office. he was the shah's minister, his name is ken tree committed many people thought would soon become the prime minister. halfway through my meeting, we got a call from a man who was in charge of security and said that my name has come up with someone who has associations with these groups and within an hour is about to leave the ministry, that grabs me to with the usually grab political prisoners. they grab your hands to make sure you don't write on a cyanide pill. these are things popular in those days. they are unpopular the exercise today.

then they took me to a place called the committee. i spent six months they are in the infamous prison, where these clergy for myself. >> host: first of all, we tortured? >> guest: i think that is the worst torture. i would speak up a couple times, but literally as i say, when we arrived, jimmy carter was elected. overnight you can see not to use torture. and i almost got pneumonia in the first 24 hours. after 48 hours it took me to the

hospital to the mandates that were part of the reminiscence of the worst and best of humanity in people who did this to others and others who suffered. we have many friends from prison that were very badly tortured. it's like solitary confinement and they arrested my wife, knowing she wasn't involved. these are written a few subtle forms of torture, the kind that both the regime engaged in afterward and a massive and the kind that the regime was engaged

in because remember, he ran as a terrorist guerrilla problem and suburban acts of terrorism. they panicked and when they arrested those people, waterboarding was the easiest they could do. >> host: abbas milani, how well did you get to know the mullahs over there with you? >> guest: some of them i got to know fairly well. ayatollah khomeini was really one of the modern site used to spend probably an hour a day with him. i used to teach english occasionally would select it to become the next leader after khomeini. people out and killed in mass

with various trials. he spoke out and he lost his job and was put in prison for the rest of his life. it's one of the more courageous acts and 20 century politics, someone who was it recipe the leader that said i can't watch people get tortured and executed. i'll speak up and if i lose my job, i lose my job. so i got to know him. he is to play volleyball occasionally. but all of that essay think most people who have reviewed the book, "wall street journal," other places, they have pointed that more or less succeeded in keeping personal views of past prejudices that reference this

database. this is an attempt to have a scholarly look at the shah, rather than settling accounts. >> host: at the end, who is still loyal to the shah? >> guest: you know, unfortunately they lack many of them to stay in iran and executed by this regime. the military remained bitterly to the end and again, what is less known and i described this is the carter administration towards november, around november 1978 decide as with the british that the mohammad reza o longer capable of statement

power. they become active in trying to create a rapprochement between iranian military and the clergy who they had paid is the most likely successor. so the army -- they realize that the american government is no longer supporting the shah. they were disputes for almost a year and a half, but only towards the end where there dissections. but you know, the shah decided to do weekend was interesting. what he decided to do you see arrested some of his most loyal servant, including in my boat because he thought this way he can sort of stay ahead of the revolution. but i think anybody who studies evolution knows if you feed its

appetite it only increases the appetite. they see weakness when you put sharon prime minister in prison. they now want your head rather than reform. >> host: we've been talking here with abbas milani. this book has been reviewed at "the wall street journal," he finally brought enlightening biography. "the l.a. times" said splendidly detailed biography. it is published by grace mcmillan. "the shah" is the name of the boat. hoover institution at stanford university. >> going as far back as abigail adams and martha washington, you find the first ladies played an active role in the white house

and in the campaign said it took to get there. abigail adams is a campaign strategist for her husband. she helped advise him in order to win an election who he had to keep in his coalition. they were talking desperately about the politics and legislation that needed to be passed in which senators and congress men could count on and what he needed to do to win more support. >> i was curious what also you think the role of ceo isn't talking about capitalism and defending capitalism is. you talk about the role of

government sometimes and how it works against business. do ceos have a role in talking about and defending capitalism and explaining it to people? are resistant to you. we do by example? >> guest: i think we do. one of the most disturbing statistics for me is for the longest period of time, you have to understand the history of the united states. we started out really poor. we were backwater the united states. really as we embrace capitalism in the united states, where tens of millions of immigrants come to create a better life. they have the freedom to enterprise, the freedom to start his essays. for the longest period of time, while over 100 years, the united states was traced nation in the world in terms of economic freedom, the most capitalistic nation in the world without

exception. a shorter period of time ago, the year 2000, the united states still ranked number three on the economic freedom index behind hong kong and singapore. so we were number one anymore, blue number three against pretty dynamic economies. over the last 13 years, with now dropped down to number 18. when people ask what is wrong with the economy, why do we have such high unemployment? y has disposable income per capita basis, why is that decline in house over the last 10 years? the answer is right there. we are less free today than we were 13 years ago. as are economic freedom declines, government regulation increase, taxes increased, the engine that is the basis for our

prosperity, which is business is lessened and prosperity is therefore declining as well. as economic freedom does not come so does prosperity. so if the business people are willing to speak up for free enterprise capitalism, we can expect economic freedom to continue to lesson in american press verity will continue to lesson as well. we are far from a free enterprise capitalist system anymore. we are moved towards a crony capitalistic system, where we've got a government and big business often times colluding with each other. the great example is the fiscal cliff bill that just passed. with the need to komodo and you see payoffs were connected organizations such as hollywood, alternative energy to stand out for me, but there's all kinds of special deals being cut and we are moving away from a system where people think it's fair and

a system where you can get ahead through hard work and enterprise .. moderator of the "chicago tribune." [applause] >> thank you. thank you all for coming out on a beautiful day here we are. we don't gate lot of those here. i'm phil rosin that with the "chicago tribune." i'm with ken cull less than, -- cull less than and shelley murphy who are her