Unelected, yes. He was King (Shah han Shahi: King of Kings), the last to sit the Peacock Throne.
Tyrant, hardly. He, as all monarchs, had political enemies. His tended to be a bit more ruthless and violent. From what I could see, he was introducing great reforms that brought his people out of the dark ages. Women held professional jobs (doctors, dentists, junior executives, etc.); they were even permitted to wear western attire and many abandoned the chadora.
I met the Shah at the Tehran Hilton shortly after we first arrived in Tehran. He was very kind, grandfatherly in fact. And spoke the most elequent english. Even as a kid I was impressed by him.
All tyrants boast of some achievements. Indeed, some of the most efficiently run states have been autocracies. Was the Shah on the same level as Hitler? Of course not. But he was far from a hero. If I were to compare him to a leader today, it would probably be Hugo Chavez.
_______________________________________
Get real. He was the second Shah in the lineage. His father, a general who seized power and then called himself Shah was the only other one. The indisputable historic fact is that there never was a great lineage leading to the Shah of Beverly Hills.
Read the CIA AAR on Operation Ajax. It is very clear and downright insulting in its description of the Shah's cowardice. It calls him 'pathologically afraid' and describes how they used his sister to shame him into action. The report was written by Genral Schwarzkopf's father, one of the coup's authors.
You may have fond childhood memories of having seen him but I think I'll take the CIA's report (which was never meant to be seen by the public) over your emotional assessment of his character.
that's a very naive assumption ...do you have much real world experience abroad?