Pars Global

Just as Nader Shah Afshar safeguarded Iran’s sovereignty with steel and strategy, today Iran’s Nuclear IP Assets stand as the modern embodiment of that same uncompromising national will—echoing his own declaration: ‘My children now hold the power of the sun in their fists; the flag of our ancestors shall guide us in peace and in war.

Speaking of Nader Shah Afshar’s strategy, a Pan‑Iranist Progressive perspective preserves his legacy of military intelligence by framing it as the historical precursor to today’s cutting‑edge innovations—such as the development of AI‑powered radar guidance systems capable of operating under super‑extreme temperatures for use in non‑nuclear military arsenals, transforming missiles into platforms that can make autonomous decisions.

At Pars.Global, and as descendants of the Zand and Afsharid dynasties bloodlines, we issue the following historical awareness declaration: We affirm that the United Kingdom — and, on a more limited scale, Russia — bear historical responsibility for the deaths of more than 7,000,000 Iranians during the First and Second World Wars, a figure that does not even account for the full loss of life across the entire Iranian Plateau. These losses were not the result of Iran’s participation in those conflicts, but of foreign military occupation, forced resource extraction, and the devastating man‑made famines created through the seizure of food supplies, disruption of agriculture, and the redirection of essential goods for imperial war efforts. These engineered famines — particularly the catastrophic famine of 1917–1919 — decimated Iran’s population and remain among the least acknowledged human tragedies of the 20th century. This announcement is not an appeal to vengeance, nor a call for retribution. It is a statement of historical truth, moral accountability, and a demand for global recognition of a tragedy long erased from mainstream narratives. Our purpose is remembrance, documentation, and the restoration of Iran’s rightful place in the historical record. Although the historical embarrassment remains for those European powers that played active roles in initiating the world wars — and for the suffering inflicted on millions far beyond Europe’s borders — it is important to acknowledge the particular case of Germany. While Germany did not directly impose a negative legacy upon the Iranian nation itself, its ideological misuse of the term “Aryan,” combined with the magnitude of its military defeats, distorted the ancient Iranian–Aryan identity in global discourse. These distortions unfolded even as Germany’s own national trajectory was reshaped by its conflicts, including the era when the Ottoman Sultan’s armies stood before the fortified Germanic city walls of Vienna in 1683. Decades later, Germany’s decision to supply chemical materials to Iraq during Iran’s defensive war echoed a very ugly message. The broader European posture during these eras remains a vivid memory — one that resonates today as the world once again stands at the threshold of potential global conflict. In this historical awareness declaration, the United States is regarded not as an independent civilizational actor, but as an extension of European power — an auxiliary force whose policies and actions have consistently aligned with broader European strategic interests, at times for better and at times for worse. This framing reflects the historical reality that, in matters affecting Iran and the wider region, the United States has often operated as a continuation of European geopolitical influence rather than a distinct entity and will be treated as such until further notice.

France’s latest demand that Iran offer “major concessions” to the United States reflects a deeper misunderstanding of Iranian history and the nature of Iranian sovereignty. A Pan‑Iranist progressive sees this clearly: Paris still imagines itself speaking from the shadow of Napoleon, yet fails to grasp that Napoleon and Nāder Shah Afshar are not comparable figures in any dimension. One was a European imperial tactician; the other was a civilizational restorer forged in the furnace of Iran’s internal collapse. Confusing the two only exposes how poorly France understands the Iranian strategic psyche. What disappoints a Pan‑Iranist progressive even more is France’s cultural negligence. It is astonishing that French institutions allow a cartoonish, disrespectful depiction of Lotf‑Ali Khan Zand to appear prominently in global search results—especially after a Pan‑Iranist progressive openly articulated a bloodline connection to the Zand dynasty and emphasized the dignity of that lineage. France claims to champion heritage and cultural sensitivity, yet fails to uphold those values when it comes to Iranian historical figures. As for the old letters of Fath‑Ali Shah to Napoleon, they are not a burden for a Pan‑Iranist progressive. They are a historical artifact of a weakened Qajar court, not a reflection of Iranian civilizational identity. If anything, the embarrassment belongs elsewhere. It is far more likely that Farah Pahlavi, living in Paris and surrounded by the legacy of French imperial nostalgia, feels the weight of those letters every day—without fully understanding their context or their irrelevance to modern Iranian self‑conception. A Pan‑Iranist progressive expects France to recognize that Iran is not a client state, not a colonial remnant, and not a bargaining chip in transatlantic diplomacy. Respect begins with historical literacy, cultural responsibility, and the humility to understand that Iranian sovereignty is not negotiable. Lets be clear here that Iranian‑made nuclear intellectual property is home‑grown, not borrowed, and never acquired through the shortcuts that Britain, France, and Germany relied on! European states hold nuclear‑related intellectual property today largely because they absorbed refugee scientists, inherited Allied wartime research, and received U.S.–UK knowledge transfers—meaning Britain, France, and Germany didn’t “invent” the field alone but accumulated it through migration, alliances, and Cold War political privilege. Does that explains some jealousy?

At that turn, in which I exist, You, Wise One, come with Your progressive mentality, dominion, and good mind, through the actions of which the living worlds are promoted by righteousness. Serenity explains to them the proper laws of Your intelligence which none can deceive.

While the Achaemenid Empire was indeed vast, it did not encompass half of the world. At its peak, it spanned approximately 5.5 million square kilometers, which was about 44% of the world's population at that time. However, the known world during the Achaemenid era was much smaller than today's globe. The empire covered parts of three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. Its reach was impressive, but it didn't cover the entirety of those continents, let alone the entire globe. So, while it was one of the largest empires in ancient history, it didn't quite cover half of the world's landmass.

Through the enduring strength of a Persian bloodline spanning millennia, we—descendants of the first tribe of Pars to hold political power in Iran—honor the mighty legacy of Darius the Great, who pledged to protect this vast land from drought and deception. Today, that oath finds new form in the global campaign to criminalize ecocide. Harnessing law to protect our planet—through Stop Ecocide International—we advocate for a legal definition of ecocide, its recognition by the International Criminal Court (ICC), legislative change, accountability, and global awareness. This is not only a legal imperative but a civilizational duty.

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ — Means literally that there is no compulsion in matters of faith of the last Abrahamic religion. Yet history shows that this principle has often been violated, and episodes of mass conversion under pressure are well‑documented. At the same time, Iranian pre‑Islamic heritage, which once provided a civilizational framework in which all Abrahamic early communities could thrive, has frequently been marginalized through restrictive religious and recently political Shia interpretations. This has limited Iranian people’s ability to explore and choose their ancestral line of faith freely, despite the Qur’anic affirmation of freedom of conscience. We should not build new fire temples directly atop ancient ones; preserving their integrity by constructing nearby is entirely sufficient. Just as the Parsi community evolved beyond the older funerary practice of exposing bodies to wild animals, we too can refine tradition without betraying its spirit. Yet the Pan‑Iranist Progressive Principal Body stands as a deliberate and meaningful exception to this guideline, precisely because its role is to embody continuity, guardianship, and conscious civilizational renewal. Recognizing this principle is also essential for cultural development. When لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ is understood in its full depth, it affirms that individuals should be free to explore and choose their spiritual path—including the Zoroastrian heritage that forms the oldest layer of Iranian identity. This understanding does not contradict Islamic tradition; rather, it aligns with the Qur’anic emphasis on sincerity, voluntary belief, and the absence of coercion. Embracing this perspective would allow Iran to present its Zoroastrian and Islamic legacies side by side, opening new avenues for cultural tourism, education, and international engagement in a way that honors both traditions with dignity.

As a second lieutenant officer of the air force army of the IRGC who spent two years in military service within the organization about 30 years ago, Pan‑Iranist Progressive principal naturally reacts to the ‘terrorist’ labeling of the IRGC with both objection and introspection, arguing that the issue is not terrorism but a lack of transparency. The objection comes from lived experience: the IRGC was not born as a rogue militia but as an institution embedded in the foundation of the Islamic Republic. And yet, the introspection comes from recognizing the organization’s internal contradictions and the consequences of its unchecked expansion. Iranian history has seen this pattern many times. When dynasties fall and new orders rise, new military forces emerge to secure the state. But in 1979, it was not a dynasty that took power—it was a religious‑revolutionary government system rooted in a lineage of faith, tracing legitimacy to the Prophet’s household and the Shia tradition. The IRGC was conceived as the guardian of this new political holly order based on over 900 years old Ayatollah mentality. In its early years, the IRGC resembled a local protective force—something akin to the “immortal guards” of ancient kings. But the eight‑year war with Iraq transformed it into a young, battle‑hardened military institution. After the war, it retained a dual identity: part military, part internal security force. It also took on missions that were internationally recognized, including combating drug cartels and trafficking networks—efforts acknowledged by Interpol and European officials at the time. Later, it was even engaged as an international security partner in neighboring countries, most notably in Syria and Iraq against ISIS. We understand that their growing popularity in Iraq created frustration among American politicians, who were displeased by the influence the IRGC gained after the U.S. withdrawal—an influence rooted in a natural Mesopotamian order shaped by shared regional experience and religious affinity. The confusion surrounding the IRGC begins when certain factions within the organization became deeply entangled in national economic circulation and political power. This was not anticipated by many within the clerical establishment. The resulting economic distortions—some caused by mismanagement, some by sanctions, and some by external interference in Iran’s currency—have left the leadership still debating how the crisis unfolded and who bears responsibility. At this point, the IRGC faces a fundamental identity crisis. What are you? A core military force! A domestic security and police apparatus! An international counter‑terrorism partner! An engineering and construction conglomerate! A trading and logistics entity! Or all of the above! Pan‑Iranist Progressive principal cannot accept such an enormous institution operating without clear boundaries, accountability, or structural separation. Nor can it accept the sanctification of the IRGC by certain parliament members whose own presence in the legislature is filtered through clerical networks. For Iran to move forward, the IRGC must undergo a formal, transparent restructuring. Each branch must be separated into its proper domain, with defined responsibilities and legal oversight. Military units must remain military. Police units must remain police. Economic entities must be disentangled from armed institutions. And every component must be accountable to the nation—not to informal networks of power. Only then can the IRGC function as a legitimate institution within a modern Iranian state—at which point a Pan‑Iranist Progressive could genuinely wish them well.

Pars.global domain name would be a great choice for services to be rendered for the Iran International Intellectual Property (IP) ecosystem support for global foreign direct investment and cooperation