Shah

Could a more realistic outlook by the Shah of Iran allowed him to survive and modernize Iran.Less ostentatious celebrations of his rule and more courting of minorities,play the ayatollahs off against each other while having a subtler SAVAK kill Khomeini,punish the more obvious corruption in the elite publicly,would anything have worked?
 
We'd probably need to start in the 1700s to fix all this. I'm curious as to what the more creative people can think of. I... don't have anything specific in mind sorry.
 
Could a more realistic outlook by the Shah of Iran allowed him to survive and modernize Iran.Less ostentatious celebrations of his rule and more courting of minorities,play the ayatollahs off against each other while having a subtler SAVAK kill Khomeini,punish the more obvious corruption in the elite publicly,would anything have worked?

The Pahlavis lacked legitimacy as monarchs. The first Pahlavi Shah was a military officer who seized the throne in a coup in the early 1900's, so they weren't really much more Persian Emperors than Saddam Hussein was the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar. The ostentatious celebrations of rule were intended to cement that identity in the minds of the Iranian public. There couldn't be a modernization and liberalization overseen by a benevolent monarch because there wasn't really a proper monarchy.
 
The Pahlavis lacked legitimacy as monarchs. The first Pahlavi Shah was a military officer who seized the throne in a coup in the early 1900's, so they weren't really much more Persian Emperors than Saddam Hussein was the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar. The ostentatious celebrations of rule were intended to cement that identity in the minds of the Iranian public. There couldn't be a modernization and liberalization overseen by a benevolent monarch because there wasn't really a proper monarchy.

At least with my knowledge Pahlavis were originally from Iranian core territories unlike Qajars.
 
At least with my knowledge Pahlavis were originally from Iranian core territories unlike Qajars.

The Pahlavi family was ultimately Turkic in origin, I think, like the Qajars, and like a third of the Iranian population. The Qajars weren't really foreigners.
 
The Pahlavis lacked legitimacy as monarchs. The first Pahlavi Shah was a military officer who seized the throne in a coup in the early 1900's, so they weren't really much more Persian Emperors than Saddam Hussein was the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar. The ostentatious celebrations of rule were intended to cement that identity in the minds of the Iranian public. There couldn't be a modernization and liberalization overseen by a benevolent monarch because there wasn't really a proper monarchy.
Well the older one had legitimacy as someone with genuine nationalist credentials, but that was charismatic legitimacy rather than a traditional one.
 
As a teenager I remember news reports of the 2500 year anniversary celebration in a giant tent city,I think if the Shah had been a better actor and less insecure he could have prevailed,but in reading a lot of history since,it's obvious he wasn't very special,certainly no Tito,Pinochet,...and there was so much corruption,I don't think he was feared by the elite.I think a more able type,even with character problems,had a lot going for themselves,the military,secret police,oil wealth,and could have survived.
 
Top