What would Iran look like in the event Pahlavi dynasty retains power

[prani]

If the Moderators feel that this belongs to the modern politics forum, they can move it to that forum. But i would like the discussion to be restricted to events prior to 2005

Say the Pahlavi dynasty survives the crises of 1978 or the crises of 1978 the culminated in the Iranian Revolution didn't happen. How would Iran fare in the modern 21st century assuming that, following the death of Mohammed Reza Shah due to cancer somewhere in the early 80s, the country gradually democratizes in the 80s and 90s eventually by the late 2000s the shah is reduced to the role of a constitutional monarch but the monarchy still retains considerable influence behind the scene, given the fact that they still own companies and industries. I have following questions

1. How better off would Iran be, the question is whether Iran would be better of without the Iran-Iraq war and the Crippling sanctions, how better off would ordinary Iranians be, i want to restrict the conversation to the standard of living and economic development upto 2005, i don't want this to be topic of current politics.

How would shah-regime react to the low oil prices of the 80s and the 90s, would it destabilize the economy and would oil further depreciate since Iraq and Iran aren't fighting a war and both their oil output would be trading in the international markets, will this contribute to the Soviet economy collapsing earlier ?

2. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was as a result of the paranoia on the part of the soviet leadership's interpretation of the events in the middle east, but none the less in my opinion a very limited soviet intervention would take place in Afghanistan, how would the middle east react to the no so secret but overt soviet intervention in Afghanistan, how would the Shah react to these events. How would the US react? would we see the rise of Mujahedeen? Instead of Soviet APC rolling into Afghanistan stories/rumors of spetsnaz and GRU/KGB shenanigans in Afghanistan and Pakistan make into world press.

3. How would Iran and the shah's government react to the fall of the USSR? Tajikistan become closely allied to Iran? how would the relationship between Iran and Azerbaijan be ?
Assume that the Soviet Union dissolves in the late 80s or early 90s in more or less the same manner but probably less catastrophically, maybe the USSR is replaced by a new entity as envisioned in the new union treaty of 1991, since the military might be more loyal to the soviet government in the absence of the afghan war which strained relationship between the CPSU and the soviet military.

4. How radical would the middle east get in the absence of Iran Iraq war, Iranian Islamic revolution, no Iraq Kuwait war, limited soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

5. united states and the west, relationship with the middle east in this new timeline.

 

[Nephi]

It depends on what and how, the Pahlavi dynasty was pretty tyrannical, maybe if the US had stayed out of it with Mosaddegh.

I mean it was Persian oil, that was an unfair treaty and what that caused was a lot worse.

Of course it would be a lot better and especially now with sanctions against Russia.

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

Say the Pahlavi dynasty survives the crises of 1978 or the crises of 1978 the culminated in the Iranian Revolution didn't happen. How would Iran fare in the modern 21st century assuming that, following the death of Mohammed Reza Shah due to cancer somewhere in the early 80s, the country gradually democratizes in the 80s and 90s eventually by the late 2000s the shah is reduced to the role of a constitutional monarch but the monarchy still retains considerable influence behind the scene, given the fact that they still own companies and industries. I have following questions

What you're suggesting is ASB or ATL at best. There was ZERO chance of the Pahlavis democratizing as the yardstick they measured themselves against were other Middle Eastern kingdoms not something modern like the British Monarchy.

1. How better off would Iran be, the question is whether Iran would be better of without the Iran-Iraq war and the Crippling sanctions, how better off would ordinary Iranians be, i want to restrict the conversation to the standard of living and economic development upto 2005, i don't want this to be topic of current politics.

A miniscule and largely Tehran-centred middle class would continue to emerge (as it had before 1979). This would be constituted largely of Pahlavi loyalists and Civil Servants, though a very smaller apolitical Middle Class may also emerge by the 1990s. But the majority of the country's population would remain dirt poor and hopeless. Syria on steroids!

2. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was as a result of the paranoia on the part of the soviet leadership's interpretation of the events in the middle east, but none the less in my opinion a very limited soviet intervention would take place in Afghanistan, how would the middle east react to the no so secret but overt soviet intervention in Afghanistan, how would the Shah react to these events.

The Shah or his successor would likely react by telling the Americans he was right all along about the danger of Soviet expansionism and push for the Americans to sell him more military hardware, and more up-to-date military hardware as the Americans apparently had a habit of palming off decades old tech for exhorbitant prices

How would the US react? would we see the rise of Mujahedeen? Instead of Soviet APC rolling into Afghanistan stories/rumors of spetsnaz and GRU/KGB shenanigans in Afghanistan and Pakistan make into world press.

Its likely the dynamics will change - the US may will now have the option of launching an insurgency from Iran as well as Pakistan.

3. How would Iran and the shah's government react to the fall of the USSR? Tajikistan become closely allied to Iran? how would the relationship between Iran and Azerbaijan be ?

Closer relations with Tajikistan, much more closer than OTL. Iran/Azerbaijan relationship similar to OTL

 

[Dfront21]

What you're suggesting is ASB or ATL at best. There was ZERO chance of the Pahlavis democratizing as the yardstick they measured themselves against were other Middle Eastern kingdoms not something modern like the British Monarchy.


A miniscule and largely Tehran-centred middle class would continue to emerge (as it had before 1979). This would be constituted largely of Pahlavi loyalists and Civil Servants, though a very smaller apolitical Middle Class may also emerge by the 1990s. But the majority of the country's population would remain dirt poor and hopeless. Syria on steroids!


The Shah or his successor would likely react by telling the Americans he was right all along about the danger of Soviet expansionism and push for the Americans to sell him more military hardware, and more up-to-date military hardware as the Americans apparently had a habit of palming off decades old tech for exhorbitant prices


Its likely the dynamics will change - the US may will now have the option of launching an insurgency from Iran as well as Pakistan.

Closer relations with Tajikistan, much more closer than OTL. Iran/Azerbaijan relationship similar to OTL

I think the relationship with Azerbaijan would also be much closer, maybe even full integration into Iran. In the late 80s there was a strong pro Iran current in the Republic of Azerbaijan (also Turkmenistan), which was quickly dismissed as it became apparent that the Iranian regime was only interested in spreading its radical Shia government. A more secular, nationalist and economically developed Pahlavi Iran would be more appealing to the newly formed Republic.

 

[LordMartinax]

Say the Pahlavi dynasty survives the crises of 1978 or the crises of 1978 the culminated in the Iranian Revolution didn't happen. How would Iran fare in the modern 21st century assuming that, following the death of Mohammed Reza Shah due to cancer somewhere in the early 80s, the country gradually democratizes in the 80s and 90s eventually by the late 2000s the shah is reduced to the role of a constitutional monarch but the monarchy still retains considerable influence behind the scene, given the fact that they still own companies and industries. I have following questions

Democratization will largely depend on the person of Shah and the major influences on him. Considering that Crown prince Reza was spending quite a lot of time in the US, combined with the Shah likely needing to introduce some reforms (originall Bakhtiar package) and with the added bonus of early death of Khomeini, you would probably get a slightly ddemocratized regime by the time of the Shah's death. Then, it depends on who exactly gets to influence the new Shah (an inexperienced and indecisive youth at that point). You might eventually get a democracy, though more in the Morrocan/Jordanian way (better then their neighbours, but still leaving things to be desired).

1. How better off would Iran be, the question is whether Iran would be better of without the Iran-Iraq war and the Crippling sanctions, how better off would ordinary Iranians be, i want to restrict the conversation to the standard of living and economic development upto 2005, i don't want this to be topic of current politics.

Not driving hundreds of thousands into exile, combined with a lack of brutall war, sanctions and thousends to tens of thousends executed prisoners is almost certainly going to result in economically improved situation.

2. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was as a result of the paranoia on the part of the soviet leadership's interpretation of the events in the middle east, but none the less in my opinion a very limited soviet intervention would take place in Afghanistan, how would the middle east react to the no so secret but overt soviet intervention in Afghanistan, how would the Shah react to these events. How would the US react? would we see the rise of Mujahedeen? Instead of Soviet APC rolling into Afghanistan stories/rumors of spetsnaz and GRU/KGB shenanigans in Afghanistan and Pakistan make into world press.

The intervention mostly came due to the fear of Afghanistan turning to the rivals of USSR. There was even an idea that Amin was a CIA operative (he did have meetings with US diplomats, but nothing on this level). As long as the USSR believes that their interests in the country are threatened, they are highly likely to intervene in their OTL strength.

A big difference here will be in the support that Iran gives to the Mujahedeen. IOTL, the Iranian assistance was for the duration of the Afghan jihad limited to specific Hazara groups, those most likely to support their policies. After 1989, they did expand to most Hazaras, and after Kabul fell, and especially after the 98 massacres, they started to fully support Massoud's Northern alliance. Here, the Iranians are much less likely to be so choosy, and full support to Hazara groups and likely the more moderate Jamiat-e Islami under Rabbani, Ismail Khan and Massoud will start quite early on. Indeed, with Pakistan not being the sole way to send in weapons, the US aid will likely get in much higher numbers to groups that were not Hekmatyar'S Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin. Post-war situation will also be much more complicated, as both the Kabul government and Hekmatyar will have powerfull close allied states, who are also US allies. We might see some sort of compromise (that actually suceeds), or a much more decisive civil war, with the Kabul government likely being the victor. Taliban might well never raise, or stay a small regional movement in southern Durrani Pashtun areas around Kandahar.

3. How would Iran and the shah's government react to the fall of the USSR? Tajikistan become closely allied to Iran? how would the relationship between Iran and Azerbaijan be ?

An foreign policy much more based on ration politics, and much less on spreading their version of Islam. Tajikistan is a likely partner on many issues, including Afghanistan (as it somewhat was IOTL).

4. How radical would the middle east get in the absence of Iran Iraq war, Iranian Islamic revolution, no Iraq Kuwait war,

Well, Saddam might well still try something, he had high ambitions even before the revolution in Iran.

 

[edgeworthy]

Maybe a larger version of Jordan?

 

[walmart]

Well, Saddam might well still try something, he had high ambitions even before the revolution in Iran.

The Iran-Iraq war was tied to the weakening and isolation of Iran following the revolution. Likewise the invasion of Kuwait was in turn tied to the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[walmart]

A miniscule and largely Tehran-centred middle class would continue to emerge (as it had before 1979). This would be constituted largely of Pahlavi loyalists and Civil Servants, though a very smaller apolitical Middle Class may also emerge by the 1990s. But the majority of the country's population would remain dirt poor and hopeless. Syria on steroids!

Iran lacks the sectarian divisions that Syria has and fear of Islamists among secularists.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Iran lacks the sectarian divisions that Syria has and fear of Islamists among secularists.

There's still the dissenting clergy to deal with, tho'.

 

[prani]

Iran lacks the sectarian divisions that Syria has and fear of Islamists among secularists.

That's what I thought, Iran is 90 percent Shia, yes they do have ethnic divide but Shia Islam usually wins out the division, case in point Iranian Arabs who were Shia backed the clerical regime instead of Arab Saddam

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

Iran lacks the sectarian divisions that Syria has and fear of Islamists among secularists.

I didn't mean that. I meant similar to Syria in that power would be concentrated in the hands of one family, their lackeys, and everyone else related to/tied to them. The vast majority of Iranians - close to 80-90% - will remain outside of this bubble. This will continue to the 1990s and 2000s simply because the system will be so rigid (similar to Syria).

The heavy-handed outcomes to mass rebellion will also be the same - as long as you have outside powers propping up the regimes in power. The only difference will be the Pahlavis can become far richer and far more corrupt than the Assads ever were/will be - thanks to the free-flowing oil.

 

[Maponus]

What people have to understand is that Muhammed Reza was deeply ideologically opposed to democracy at a fundamental level, to the point where he didn't even allow himself to understand how democracies even worked. No matter how many times the British ambassador and his own advisors tried to explain to him that no, the British government could not simply censor The Guardian because he asked them to - he continued to believe it was proof of a sinister conspiracy against him. When asked by the BBC about his dictatorial rule, he politely but firmly implied that it was Britain, with its labour unrest and race riots, who was backward and unstable and that it should consider becoming more like his advanced and progressive totalitarian one-party monarchy.

When his own people rose up against mere years later, what was his conclusion? Why, that the US and the UK had directly planned it! Why else would journalists in the Western world have ever reported on SAVAK torturing political prisoners, if not as part of a sinister globalist conspiracy to unite Reactionary Islam and Communism for... some reason?

He will never become a constitutional monarch. If the Pahlavi Monarchy persists it will be as a mirror image of Saudi Arabia without the hijab, or perhaps it is better to imagine a North Korea without Communism.

 

[aaronupright]

Agreed with rest. The Pavhlvis were fundamentally opposed to Democracy. Even if the monarchy survives, I don't see Ali Reza doing much more then cosmetic changes.
Eventually things would reach a boiling point.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Agreed with rest. The Pavhlvis were fundamentally opposed to Democracy. Even if the monarchy survives, I don't see Ali Reza doing much more then cosmetic changes.
Eventually things would reach a boiling point.

I'm wondering if this Iran ends up more like Morocco - it has elections, sure, but the monarch is still pretty darn powerful.

 

[LordMartinax]

The Iran-Iraq war was tied to the weakening and isolation of Iran following the revolution. Likewise the invasion of Kuwait was in turn tied to the Iran-Iraq war.

Not saying he would go for Iran, that would be highly stupid, with continuous US support. But I wouldn't rule out another invasion in a different country. Though where is a big question and if an opportunity comes.

 

[aaronupright]

I'm wondering if this Iran ends up more like Morocco - it has elections, sure, but the monarch is still pretty darn powerful.

As I said, "cosmetic changes". Westerners are easily seduced with stuff like the occasional election, a few women in short skirts, enough that one gets the checklist of "secular and democratic minded, and move on".

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Agreed with rest. The Pavhlvis were fundamentally opposed to Democracy. Even if the monarchy survives, I don't see Ali Reza doing much more then cosmetic changes.
Eventually things would reach a boiling point.

There was Patrick Ali Pahlavi, the Shah's nephew, and heir presumptive up to 1960; later imprisoned for demanding democratic reforms.

 

[Cymraeg]

What people have to understand is that Muhammed Reza was deeply ideologically opposed to democracy at a fundamental level, to the point where he didn't even allow himself to understand how democracies even worked. No matter how many times the British ambassador and his own advisors tried to explain to him that no, the British government could not simply censor The Guardian because he asked them to - he continued to believe it was proof of a sinister conspiracy against him. When asked by the BBC about his dictatorial rule, he politely but firmly implied that it was Britain, with its Poll Tax riots, who was backward and unstable and that it should consider becoming more like his advanced and progressive totalitarian one-party monarchy.

When his own people rose up against mere years later, what was his conclusion? Why, that the US and the UK had directly planned it! Why else would journalists in the Western world have ever reported on SAVAK torturing political prisoners, if not as part of a sinister globalist conspiracy to unite Reactionary Islam and Communism for... some reason?

He will never become a constitutional monarch. If the Pahlavi Monarchy persists it will be as a mirror image of Saudi Arabia without the hijab, or perhaps it is better to imagine a North Korea without Communism.

What do you mean by Poll Tax riots? I think you might be thinking of something other than the Poll Tax protests that took place in the 1990 period, a decade after the Shah died.

 

[Maponus]

What do you mean by Poll Tax riots? I think you might be thinking of something other than the Poll Tax protests that took place in the 1990 period, a decade after the Shah died.

Now you mention it he was probably referring to strikes and related labour unrest. The general gist was the same - British society is breaking down while the White Revolution is a great success, so shut up.

 

[Cymraeg]

Now you mention it he was probably referring to strikes and related labour unrest. The general gist was the same - British society is breaking down while the White Revolution is a great success, so shut up.

Aha, yes that makes more sense.