AHC: Keep Iran under the Pahlavi Dynasty

Hello everyone, been kicking around this idea for a while. I always thought it would be an interesting task to examine the possibilities of Iran remaining under its monarchy and even possibly maintaining its status as a modern, Western-leaning nation in the Middle East. Whether this would come from Pahlavi or (more likely) from a democratic government with the Shah in more of a ceremonial position like the British monarchy is up to the folks responding to the challenge, though I suppose my two preconditions for the challenge would be keep the monarchy and no successful Iranian Revolution.

1. Death of Khomeini, while the revolution was certainly not Khomeini alone and there's always the risk that his death would lead to his being used a martyr in a revolution, there's also the consideration that his death would deal a blow to the movement's morale, while it certainly wouldn't knock several years of discontent down like a house of cards, whatever chaos goes down following Khomeini's death among the revolutionary movement could give SAVAK the time it needed to catch the major leaders of the dissident movement. It would probably be a CIA operation if it occurred.

2. US intervention, borderline ASB because of the Carter Administration's aversion to "putting boots on the ground" in other nations so to speak and the recent memory of the misadventure in Vietnam to the American public and the Pentagon, I wouldn't rank it as being an incredibly high probability of either being attempted or being successful at all. At least to me, the Shah would be so strongly perceived as a Western puppet at that point that the Iranian populace wouldn't need Khomeini's doctrine to let them know.

3. A more moderate revolution, this is one more peaceful alternative I can definitely see happening within the realm of realism where either Khomeini severely tones down the fiery revolutionary rhetoric or simply doesn't come to lead the movement at all. The basic idea would be that a moderate Islamic leader of some sort would consent to a power-sharing agreement with the Shah, restoring powers to the Majis and including some theocratic elements in his government, etc. Would probably have to come after a long, protracted conflict between the Shah's forces and those of the revolutionaries.

Possible Effects

1. Major Power Shift, the Middle East's conflict would see a very different outlook as Muslim (but Shia) Iran continues to pursue good relations with Israel and attracts the ire of the Arab Islamic world. We might see a staunch anti-Iran movement spearheaded by an opportunistic Sadaam Hussein. Whether the Iran-Iraq War would still happen is debatable, Hussein would still have a motivation at the personal level to attack Iran though the idea of war with a nation well equipped with American weaponry would be a deterrent at best, so the extent to which Iran-Iraq relations would sway towards either war or peace is a debate in and of itself.

2. A more pro-Soviet Iraq. With the US having strong relations with three regional Mideast powers (Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia), the Soviet Union might have no choice but to make a shot at winning favor with staunchly anti-communist Ba'ath Iraq. Ultimately it comes down to a decision of whether or not it's profitable for Iraq's interests and in the case of an Iraq looking for a leg up in the Middle East, it would be beneficial to make a bid for even more of the USSR's support.
 
I think you've missed the most obvious POD: Moussavi doesn't nationalize the oil industry quite as drastically, therefore the British don't ask us to overthrow him, and Iran transitions smoothly to a rich, first world constitutional democracy by the present day.
 
I think you've missed the most obvious POD: Moussavi doesn't nationalize the oil industry quite as drastically, therefore the British don't ask us to overthrow him, and Iran transitions smoothly to a rich, first world constitutional democracy by the present day.

It's Mossadegh and Iran was pretty unstable in his era, they went through like seven different PMs from 1947-1949 ish, plus I think the Soviets were looking to expand their sphere of influence into Iran at the time, the Tudeh Party was known to be receiving funding from Moscow anyway.

Plus my idea was keep Iran under the Pahlavi Dynasty though I should've specified that I meant to maintain Operation Ajax and such.

I don't think Britain was going to accept any less than the deal it had at the time though, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was pretty firm on the "we want it all" approach, I don't think you'd see a 50/50 agreement like there was between CASOC and Saudi Arabia, there's just too many petrol resources at stake for Britain at the time, who is at this point in history less energy self-sufficient than the USA. Mossadegh wasn't going to go for less than nationalization, Britain wasn't going to go for more than the status quo, someone had to give in that argument and the British weren't going to go for a 50/50 split, there's just no winning for Mossadegh without an outside power getting the British to back off like during the Suez Crisis but Ike isn't likely to side with someone like Mossadegh who seems awfully left-leaning.
 
Last edited:
Don't see it, honestly, at least not with the POD's your suggesting. Khomeini was fairly well established as the leader of the Iranian opposition since the 1960's, and while I suppose its possible for him to have a heart attack in 1978, it will probably just start rumors that the Shah assassinated him and further feed the anti-Pahlavi sentiment among the revolutionaries.

And just a "long, potracted conflict" was basically OTL-the protests started in late 1977 and gradually grew to the point where Iran's security forces couldn't contain them anymore (the Shah's army firing into crowds helped this a lot by turning people against the regime) and the whole Iranian economy was more or less shut down by protests and strikes-at which point the Shah didn't have too much of a choice.

If you want a moderate revolution that results in a (strengthened*) constitutional monarchy, I think you'd have to change Muhammad Reza's personality, or at least give him some different advisers. If he'd handled the protests like the Moroccan monarchy has handled there's this year (try to go for a minimum loss of life, and immediately submit a reformist constitution meeting the demands of most of the moderate protesters) then there's a pretty good chance he would have survived, albeit in a much less limited role. As it was, he machined gunned protesters down on the street, and didn't offer any concessions till the whole country hated him and it was really too late.

*Iran already had an elected parliament, but it was largely a rubber stamp and since 1976 only had one legal party anyway.
 
Top