Moderate Iran and the rest of the world

In our timeline in 1963, the Shah wanted to execute Ruhollah Khomeini for his opposition to the White Revolution. To prevent this, Ayatollah Shariat-Madari made Khomeini a Grand Ayatollah, a position protected from capital punishment under the Iranian Constitution. As a result, Khomeini was exiled.

in 1979, Shariat-Madari became the de facto leader of moderate clerics and everyday people who were against the Shah's regime, while Khomeini was the leader of the fundamentalist faction. Of course, Khomeini's faction won out and the Islamic Republic of Iran was born. Shariat-Madari immediately became one of the Ayatollah's harshest critics (objecting to the US embassy hostage crisis, Khomeini's system of government etc), which resulted in him being placed under house arrest. Much like the man he saved, Shariat-Madari was saved from execution by his position as a Ayatollah. He died in 1986, though the Iranian government gave him one final insult by preventing clerics from attending his funeral.

In an alternate timeline, Shariat-Madari does not give Khomeini the position of Grand Ayatollah, allowing the Shah to execute him. As a result, the religious fundamentalists in Iran are deprived of their leader. In 1979, the Shah still leaves the country, but in line with Shariat-Madari's demands, his son, Crown Prince Reza, takes over as a new constitutional monarch, with an election selecting a new secular Prime Minister.
How does this Iran fare in the world? Would it have better relations with the United States and Israel? Would it be politically stable?
 
In 1979, the Shah still leaves the country, but in line with Shariat-Madari's demands, his son, Crown Prince Reza, takes over as a new constitutional monarch, with an election selecting a new secular Prime Minister.

Does that seem realistic? Are the people who deposed the shah going to go along with this and accept a new one?

How does this Iran fare in the world? Would it have better relations with the United States and Israel? Would it be politically stable?

Depends on how well the constitutional monarchy fares. I have doubts this would work out. The Iranians were angry over US intervention in '53 to restore the shah. I think even without Khomeini, Islam would still be the unifying force behind the opposition and inevitably relations with the US and Israel would deteriorate.
 

longsword14

Banned
The Iranians were angry over US intervention in '53 to restore the shah.
This puzzles me.
The Ayatollahs were the driving force behind the overthrow of the PM. How does public opinion reconcile its outrage over '53 with support for the Ayatollahs ?
Or is the outrage only over Reza Shah and not the clerics ?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This puzzles me.
The Ayatollahs were the driving force behind the overthrow of the PM. How does public opinion reconcile its outrage over '53 with support for the Ayatollahs ?
Or is the outrage only over Reza Shah and not the clerics ?

At the time of the 1953 events, there might have just been some outrage among certain elite factions, with most of the public not strongly engaged.

But by the 1970s with increased education and wider propagation of leftist and fundamentalist ideas, and rising anxiety and irritation at the Shah's 1970s policies, the Iranians chose to remember their history a particular way. Fundamentalists were controlling the narrative and could manage or quiet reminiscences that clerics opposed Mossadegh. Mossadegh was dead and not in a position to contend for power. Neither the Shah nor the United States were going to be able to satisfy Iranians who hated either or both of them by saying, "hey, yeah, when we last meddled big time the clerics worked with us". Given the mood of the people it would just remind people more of US-Shah collusion and they could conveniently ignore the cleric part.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
In our timeline in 1963, the Shah wanted to execute Ruhollah Khomeini for his opposition to the White Revolution. To prevent this, Ayatollah Shariat-Madari made Khomeini a Grand Ayatollah, a position protected from capital punishment under the Iranian Constitution. As a result, Khomeini was exiled.

in 1979, Shariat-Madari became the de facto leader of moderate clerics and everyday people who were against the Shah's regime, while Khomeini was the leader of the fundamentalist faction. Of course, Khomeini's faction won out and the Islamic Republic of Iran was born. Shariat-Madari immediately became one of the Ayatollah's harshest critics (objecting to the US embassy hostage crisis, Khomeini's system of government etc), which resulted in him being placed under house arrest. Much like the man he saved, Shariat-Madari was saved from execution by his position as a Ayatollah. He died in 1986, though the Iranian government gave him one final insult by preventing clerics from attending his funeral.

In an alternate timeline, Shariat-Madari does not give Khomeini the position of Grand Ayatollah, allowing the Shah to execute him. As a result, the religious fundamentalists in Iran are deprived of their leader. In 1979, the Shah still leaves the country, but in line with Shariat-Madari's demands, his son, Crown Prince Reza, takes over as a new constitutional monarch, with an election selecting a new secular Prime Minister.
How does this Iran fare in the world? Would it have better relations with the United States and Israel? Would it be politically stable?
Assuming it happens like you described

What kind of land reforms will take place ? Place of iranian leftists in new govt ?

How will the religious extremists be rehabilitated back into mainstream?
 
At the time of the 1953 events, there might have just been some outrage among certain elite factions, with most of the public not strongly engaged.

But by the 1970s with increased education and wider propagation of leftist and fundamentalist ideas, and rising anxiety and irritation at the Shah's 1970s policies, the Iranians chose to remember their history a particular way. Fundamentalists were controlling the narrative and could manage or quiet reminiscences that clerics opposed Mossadegh. Mossadegh was dead and not in a position to contend for power. Neither the Shah nor the United States were going to be able to satisfy Iranians who hated either or both of them by saying, "hey, yeah, when we last meddled big time the clerics worked with us". Given the mood of the people it would just remind people more of US-Shah collusion and they could conveniently ignore the cleric part.

Also note that the clerics involved were very different people, and, unlike in Christianity, in Islam you don't really have a top-down structured "church" as an institution. While Twelver Shi'as do have a far more structured hierachy of religious scholars, each and every individual within the religious establishment still answers personally (at least in theory) of his (or, rarely, hers) conduct. In 1979, "the ayatollahs" were nothing like a unified bloc.
 

Ian_W

Banned
What is preventing some other cleric from taking over from Khomeni ?

An interesting choice would be His Eminence Al-Sistiani, who disagrees with government by the jurisprudent (ie "rule by ayatollahs") and is a hard-core democrat (he holds that tyranny is hated by God, and regular elections are the best defence against tyranny).
 
In an alternate timeline, Shariat-Madari does not give Khomeini the position of Grand Ayatollah, allowing the Shah to execute him. As a result, the religious fundamentalists in Iran are deprived of their leader. In 1979, the Shah still leaves the country, but in line with Shariat-Madari's demands, his son, Crown Prince Reza, takes over as a new constitutional monarch, with an election selecting a new secular Prime Minister.
How does this Iran fare in the world? Would it have better relations with the United States and Israel? Would it be politically stable?
More likely that Shariat-Mardari abolishes monarchy altogether and declare Iranian Republic. The monarchy was very unpopular due to that coup.
 
What is preventing some other cleric from taking over from Khomeni ?

An interesting choice would be His Eminence Al-Sistiani, who disagrees with government by the jurisprudent (ie "rule by ayatollahs") and is a hard-core democrat (he holds that tyranny is hated by God, and regular elections are the best defence against tyranny).
Well, Sistani was too young in 1979 I think.
I am also not sure he would want to take a political role in Iran (the country of his birth) by that point.
Of course, only Iranian clerics could plausibly qualify.
However, clerics who did not agree with Khomeyni on his doctrine of direct political responsibility of the religious scholars as a regency for the Hidden Imam would, by definition, not try to take over from him, simply because they would be adhering to a doctrinal tradition that almost demands them not to.
Khomeyni took over precisely because he was the cleric who theorized that clerics could and should take over, while most other maraji', while respecting him as a peer, with various nuances adhered to the traditional approach. Of course, there were ayatollahs that agreed with Khomeyni. Accordingly, they largely supported him (there is a partial exception, namely Montazeri).
 
More likely that Shariat-Mardari abolishes monarchy altogether and declare Iranian Republic. The monarchy was very unpopular due to that coup.
In my understanding, Shariat-Madari did not think he had the authority to abolish or declare anything. Khomeyni on the contrary thought that being a Shii cleric entailed precisely that sort of authority, so he used it. Sh-M could oppose the monarchy and state to his followers that supporting the Republic is a religious duty (and I expect him to do something of the sort), but that's it.
 
Top