Very long story short, the USA had a good partner with the Shah. Until the idiot Carter hosed him over.
Under the Shah, Iran was our number one ally in the region after Israel. Maybe number one period.
Iranians who agitated against him, I remember the Iranian students here protesting and rioting, had no idea they were sawing off the limb that sustained them. They destroyed their own country, with considerable help from Carter and Brzezinski.
These egg protests will do nothing, The Shah is deader than a Christmas goose.
There are stories that Carter demanded the Shah cut his friends in on a major project in Iran, and when the Shah refused (shocked that a devout man like Carter would demand such a thing...) Carter tilted toward the Ayatollah.
Whether its true or not, Brzezinski was dispatched to Iran to counsel the Shah’s generals to not resist the Ayatollah.
Within three months of taking power, the Ayatollah had every one of those generals executed.
Reza is a compelling figure to Americans but I doubt he would be welcomed by Iranians. And I also question whether he’s up to it. He really has not accomplished anything of note during his exile. I don’t think that being a talking head on American tv is much of a resume. But I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.
"...Shah of Iran..."
It was retarded the first time he was installed as a Monarch. Without the Shah electrocuting everyone’s nuts off, it’s likely the Ayatollah would have ever had a shot of getting into power.
The Iranians were actually ready for some freedom personally, and from British domination, when we snuffed that out and elevated the Shah.
Mosaddegh was a decent guy. His mistake was thinking Iran should be in charge of it’s oil rather than Brits. He was an author, administrator, lawyer, and prominent parliamentarian, his administration introduced a range of progressive social and political reforms such as social security and land reforms, including taxation of the rent on land. His government’s most notable policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum and BP).
Many Iranians regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran’s modern history. Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the CIA at the request of MI6, which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.
While the coup is commonly referred to in the West as Operation Ajax after its CIA cryptonym, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar. Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death and was buried in his own home so as to prevent a political furor.
No.
Perhaps, but it beats the alternative.
Of course the Shah is, but his son is NOT
Jimmy Carter! SPIT!
Only a blithering idiot, or a neocon ( but i repeat myself) would support installing a king.
They have lived under despotism since 1953 of either the Shah and Savak, or the Ayatollahs.
Maybe they need a chance to have some normal freedom. As a people the persians are much more intelligent and better suited to this than arabs.
A friend of mine was formerly a bodyguard of the Shah. He highly respected him and loved his country. I believe he would be happy to see the son rule.
This is just me: but if I see a bunch of English language signs in a non-English speaking country I really, really doubt whatever they’re trying to project. They’re there for whose consumption? Never trust them.
This is even true of educated countries where it’s at least plausable that the protestors know English.
But especially true of Muslim ones!
Once again, reporters are lazy.
Kings are a good form of government for ethnic, tribal, and traditional societies.
My truck salesman is an Iranian fro the 1970’s He said while the Shah was not perfect, he kept the country in far better shape and would welcome another man like him.