The Shah of Iran never fell?

Ever wondered why in autocratic muslim regimes the strongest (often only) form of opposition is islamic? Because such regimes are good at supressing secular opposition of any stripe but they simply can't supress religion-based opposition without supressing religious institutions itself, which is impossible.

So, Iran is destined to become a theocracy. So, for the Shah to remain in control, he must control the mosques. That means an "Islamic Protestantism," which is pretty much impossible.
 
No if the Shah could win the support of the Bazaar(merchants and eliminate the more radical mullahs he could maintain power.The amount of people that might have been killed by the Shah's secret police and military is tiny when compare to thise killed by the Radical regime that replaced him.
 
So, Iran is destined to become a theocracy. So, for the Shah to remain in control, he must control the mosques. That means an "Islamic Protestantism," which is pretty much impossible.

No, Iran is destined to become a theocracy if regime continues to supress all sorts of secular political groups. He doesn't have to control the mosques, he has to find common ground with islamist groups, or at least majority of them.

Islamic republic is by no means a given, seeing how traditionally shi'ia clergy stayed away from politics. They either gave or witheld support for regime but taking power for themselves was a radical departure from their past actions.
 
The Shah could have also tried to rally the more moderate clerics and thus undermined the radicals. It should be noted that Saddam was more than willing to eliminate the radicals Iranian clerics that fled to Iraq.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I've never heard anyone suggest that any significant number of Iranians wanted a rule via Junta.

The Iranians wouldn't have wanted a junta, but most would have preferred it to rule by the Islamists, Communists, or Islamic-Marxists. All three were responsible for the success of the Revolution, but the Islamists were able to wipe out the other revolutionary factions in the aftermath.
 
We can blame Carter for not allowing the Iranian military to crush the clerics in 1979-1980. They were itching to do it, but our moralist in chief refused to support this. Had they done it, we probably would have gotten a military-ruled Iran for a few years, and then a return to civilian rule, a la Turkey. More importantly, a key Middle Eastern state would have remained pro-American and the terrorists in Lebanon and elsewhere would have been deprived of a major funding and arms source...

you're assuming that the harsh crackdown would have worked like a charm, the fact is there is no way of knowing how things would have turned out in the event that carter let the Shah take off the gloves. Half the Iranian army could have mutinied at the thought of massacring hundreds or even thousands of their own country men, the situation could have degenerated into a bloody mess. then you could get the Russians supplying the opposition with weapons of their own then maybe even Saddam decides to take advantage of the situation. Hell things may very well have turned out the same as in OTL. The fact is that a violent crackdown against the revolutionaries was a morally reprihensible act, one which has no guaranteed outcome. The one thing we do know is that when the US sticks its nose in the internal politics of other countries, the track record is mixed at best.

You blame carter for Iran being the nation it is today, but what you fail to realize is that it has gotten this way after decades and decades of history, with lots of events which transpired long before Jimmy Carter was even sworn into office. Hell foreign intervention in iran is one of the main reasons why the Iranian government is so hostile to western nations. I'm not saying that if Carter let the Shah crack down on the demonstrators that the world wouldn't be a better place today, but there is no way to know that, and giving him all of the credit or blame for the way any situation turned out is crazy.
 
A couple people have mentioned that the Shah died pretty soon after the Revolution and was already in poor health, so that raises another possibility; have him die sooner than OTL. It certainly seems to me that it would at least delay the Revolution while everyone waits to see if the new Shah is an improvement.
 
The Iranians wouldn't have wanted a junta, but most would have preferred it to rule by the Islamists, Communists, or Islamic-Marxists. All three were responsible for the success of the Revolution, but the Islamists were able to wipe out the other revolutionary factions in the aftermath.

Yes, the Communists and Islamic-Marxists were very strong. How the Shah could make commen cause with them is tricky, they'd not be too fond of the Imam's even if they did support them. However the whole poinnt of putting the Shah in power from the west's POV is to keep the commies out. The Shah would need to pimpress upoun the US that the Islamists are the real danger in the Middle-East.


The Shah could have also tried to rally the more moderate clerics and thus undermined the radicals. It should be noted that Saddam was more than willing to eliminate the radicals Iranian clerics that fled to Iraq

Saddam killed lots of Arab Shia clerics killing a Iranian one wouldnt trouble him, but Khomeini was useful for keeping Iran off balance so it was less of a threat to Iraq. Saddam would need a big sweetener to get rid of Khomeini. The Shah dose have things to offer at least...


 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Yes, the Communists and Islamic-Marxists were very strong. How the Shah could make commen cause with them is tricky, they'd not be too fond of the Imam's even if they did support them. However the whole poinnt of putting the Shah in power from the west's POV is to keep the commies out. The Shah would need to pimpress upoun the US that the Islamists are the real danger in the Middle-East.

You're right, of course. I never meant to suggest the Shah would have allied with the Communists or the Islamic-Marxists; that's basically ASB. What I've been trying to say is that the Shah's continued rule was basically untenable by the time of the Revolution. If a military junta came to power, though, it would be somewhat similar, though in all probability far less repressive. Or, at least they would curb SAVAK, which would engender them to the vast majority of Iranians.
 
Top