Stable royal Iran

Is there a way, with a 1953 POD, to have a Shah on the throne without having too much trouble with the clerics, the army, the British and the general population?
 
Mossadeq victorious I guess? A constitutional monarchy in Iran, the British gone and all the oil for Iran. Challenges would likely be on the diplomatic front, with the British suffering their defeat and the Americans perhaps still distrustful of Mossadeq, so perhaps he'd seek to position Iran as a neutral power between the Soviets and Americans?
 
How do you get rid of the Brits if Mossadegh nationalises the oil industry?
Wasn't British influence mainly based on the international conglomerate in charge of some 30% of Iran's oil? Nationalization would basically neuter BP's control over oil revenue, no?
 
Wasn't British influence mainly based on the international conglomerate in charge of some 30% of Iran's oil? Nationalization would basically neuter BP's control over oil revenue, no?

I don't know the exact numbers, but my point is that the British wouldn't leave things alone.
They impounded ships transporting oil from Iran on account of the cargo being stolen merchandise.

Mossadeq victorious I guess?

Also how do you make him win? By the end he had almost everyone against him and was basically a fascist holding up with the votes of the communist Tudeh, if memory assists me.
 
Also how do you make him win? By the end he had almost everyone against him and was basically a fascist holding up with the votes of the communist Tudeh, if memory assists me.
I'm just a third of the way through Michael Axworthy's book on the subject, but was Tudeh all that popular? But I guess Mossadeq would eventually have to compromise with the right I guess.
I don't know the exact numbers, but my point is that the British wouldn't leave things alone.
They impounded ships transporting oil from Iran on account of the cargo being stolen merchandise.
Could success in the nationalization give Mossadeq a boost in national pride for him to hang on before the economic troubles hit? The Islamic Republic managed to hang on for 8 yearsunder international sanctions and while fighting against Saddam's Iraq. I'd think Iran is robust enough to hold on for the short term.
 
Kill Ayatollah Khomeini/stop him from stepping foot in Iran. Without Khomeini, the devout religious groups wouldn't have a focus.

Also keep the Shah from pissing off both the conservatives and liberals.
 
I'm just a third of the way through Michael Axworthy's book on the subject, but was Tudeh all that popular? But I guess Mossadeq would eventually have to compromise with the right I guess.

Seems like I was wrong on the subject. Tudeh didn't gain a single seat in the 1952 election, but
received about half of the votes.
So, they had large popular support and had newspapers and other organisations as means of propaganda.

Could success in the nationalization give Mossadeq a boost in national pride for him to hang on before the economic troubles hit? The Islamic Republic managed to hang on for 8 yearsunder international sanctions and while fighting against Saddam's Iraq. I'd think Iran is robust enough to hold on for the short term.

Thing is, the Islamic Republic fought a holy war, Mossadegh could not declare one.
And while he did have popular support, he didn't have as much power.

Kill Ayatollah Khomeini/stop him from stepping foot in Iran. Without Khomeini, the devout religious groups wouldn't have a focus.

In 1953 Khomeini was still in Iran and while a prominent cleric, he was not yet a revolutionary leader.
It would require a fair amount of hindsight to take him out at this point.
 

Anchises

Banned
Mossadeq victorious I guess? A constitutional monarchy in Iran, the British gone and all the oil for Iran. Challenges would likely be on the diplomatic front, with the British suffering their defeat and the Americans perhaps still distrustful of Mossadeq, so perhaps he'd seek to position Iran as a neutral power between the Soviets and Americans?

After some initial U.S. and British distrust geopolitical realities lead to a similiar situation like OTL. Iran enjoys massive western aid.

No Savak and the ability to elect their leaders change the course of history. In the 70s and 80s Islamic conservatives enjoy electoral success. They arrange with the west though and their radical ideas are prevented from manifesting by democratic checks and balances.
 
In 1953 Khomeini was still in Iran and while a prominent cleric, he was not yet a revolutionary leader.
It would require a fair amount of hindsight to take him out at this point.

That's easy enough. Khomeini slips going down a staircase, takes a tumble, and lands badly. Lights out. Or alternatively, a truck takes a corner a bit too fast and he doesn't look both ways before crossing the street... etc etc.
 
That's easy enough. Khomeini slips going down a staircase, takes a tumble, and lands badly. Lights out. Or alternatively, a truck takes a corner a bit too fast and he doesn't look both ways before crossing the street... etc etc.

Ok, Khomeini is out.
There's still the problem between Mossadegh and the British, the Tudeh and the Shah, the Americans and the Tudeh and a number of other factions.
OTL they were suppressed by a coup and rising oil prices, but they won't be butterflied away by the death of an ayatollah: there were more who opposed Pahlavi for his westernisation policies.
 
Top