Afghan monarchy restored

What if the USA had supported the restoration of the Afghan monarchy, under Mohammed Zahir Shah, after the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001, instead of supporting Hamid Karzai, and the restoration happened? What would this timeline's Afghanistan look like? Would the restoration of the monarchy have led to more unity, stability and peace in Afghanistan?

Note: I'm neither a republican nor a monarchist, I believe, that, both forms of
government are acceptable, as long as they are stable and are also liberal democracies.
 
Any monarchy that was acceptable to the local power brokers, and the US couldn't impose it on them without their consent, is going to be entirely ceremonial. As such the country would likely continue to be a mess with people like Karzi in charge but with their simply being Prime Minister rather than President. IIRC there was a certain amount of quid pro quo with Shah favouring Karzi, and once in power Karzi appointing family members of Shah to government jobs. There's also the question of what happens in 2007. Shah could be popular thanks to residual hazy popularity from decades ago, having not been in the country for decades so couldn't be blamed for anything, and didn't have a personal power base so wasn't a threat to any of the local political groups – does that transfer over to his son? Once entrenched whomever had become Prime Minister might start eyeing a promotion up to President.
 
I know that the former Shah supported the uprising against the Talibans in 2001, and that he was actually welcomed as monarch. He may serve as a stabilizer in Afghan society, and also manage some of the matters of the state since the Afghan people have no training to democracy. Having the elected power gradually gaining influence instead of just being given full power with no experience is often a good thing.
 
It also had effect of strengthening Parliament (which elect and topple PM) , Karzai as President is unpopular because of having too many power.
 
Any monarchy that was acceptable to the local power brokers, and the US couldn't impose it on them without their consent, is going to be entirely ceremonial. As such the country would likely continue to be a mess with people like Karzi in charge but with their simply being Prime Minister rather than President. IIRC there was a certain amount of quid pro quo with Shah favouring Karzi, and once in power Karzi appointing family members of Shah to government jobs. There's also the question of what happens in 2007. Shah could be popular thanks to residual hazy popularity from decades ago, having not been in the country for decades so couldn't be blamed for anything, and didn't have a personal power base so wasn't a threat to any of the local political groups – does that transfer over to his son? Once entrenched whomever had become Prime Minister might start eyeing a promotion up to President.

Many members of the Loya Jirga were in favour of restoring the monarchy but the USA forced them to accept Hamid Karzai, as president, instead.
 
Many members of the Loya Jirga were in favour of restoring the monarchy but the USA forced them to accept Hamid Karzai, as president, instead.

IIRC what happened was that Zahir Shah himself did not want to take up the throne again, preferring to let the Afghan people decide among themselves (and hence supporting whatever the Afghan people wanted). So it wasn't so much US pressure, or the adamant refusal from Pakistan (especially the ISI) to letting him come back to take up the throne, as it was Zahir Shah not wanting to become a monarch again in the first place, even before the US invasion. So if you have a ex-monarch that does not want to take advantage of filling in the power vacuum in that capacity, the ex-monarch is going to need quite a lot of convincing.
 
Top