This is what I was getting at, i should have been clear from the beginning, like i didn't want to offend people so i decided not to give examples, while we are at it i was going to say Singapore. Free election yes, but definitely not fair or democratic.
What would Iran look like in the event Pahlavi dynasty retains power
- Thread starter prani
- Start date
ahmedali
Banned
I think for their survival, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi must be eliminated by his death between 1975 and 1978 (he was very ill)
Or make Gerald Ford run for a second term and win in 1976, and for fear of losing another ally after South Vietnam, he persuades the army to depose the Shah and appoint his son
(There was a story in Iran about the army preparing for a coup, overthrowing the Shah and appointing his son, but Carter prevented the coup)
Now we look at the implications
Deposing the Shah will empty the revolution of its goal to a large extent, especially if the army promises to restore democracy and reduce the powers of the Shah with the support of Princess Regent Farah.
Khomeini will die in exile and forgotten in France, or the army will kill him, often with other opponents
Without Khomeini, Saddam would not find a reason for the invasion, and therefore there would be no Iraqi-Iranian war, and this is a good thing, and he will continue to flourish and become a leading country in the Middle East.
(It would have become the first welfare state in the Middle East and became the first to completely eradicate illiteracy)
It will be a good thing for Saudi Arabia, because there is no Juhayman Al-Otaibi incident, and therefore no conservative reaction, and also no Muharram uprising, and therefore no very hostile reaction towards the Saudi Shiites.
This means a peaceful era for King Khalid, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s will be more like the current Saudi Arabia, and it may mean early reform.
The 1977 coup does not happen in Pakistan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto remains president and I will not hand him over to Pakistan (Pakistan will remain secular)
The 1980 coup does not take place in Turkey, and Bulent Ecevit remains the prime minister of Turkey, and this means a better situation for the Kurds, and there is no ban on their language, and the 1997 coup may not happen.
Economically, Iran will suffer due to the political turmoil, but after the country is transformed into democracy, the economy will recover and flourish
By 2022, Iran will become one of the 20 countries with an economy between the OTL level, the economy of Italy, the economy of South Korea and Argentina
Socially a mixture of OTL Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan
Politically similar to Morocco and Jordan (constitutional monarchy, but the Shah monitors and prevents any foolishness of the government)
The Lebanese war is shorter without the 1979 revolution, and Musa al-Sadr does not disappear
Assuming the fall of the Soviet Union
Iran will take this opportunity to expand and make the independent states puppets of Iran (annexation of Azerbaijan and Armenia and the imposition of puppet regimes in Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan
The United States may not support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and leave Iran to work, so an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan to restore stability is possible (the restoration of King Zahir Shah will happen often).
The prime ministers will be completely different, except for Abu al-Hasan Bani Sadr, I see him becoming prime minister (he has opposition capital)
The other is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a populist), and these are the only two whom the ayatollahs tolerated being elected by the people
Also, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who caused the crisis of 2009, sees him in an alternative reality as prime minister
Or make Gerald Ford run for a second term and win in 1976, and for fear of losing another ally after South Vietnam, he persuades the army to depose the Shah and appoint his son
(There was a story in Iran about the army preparing for a coup, overthrowing the Shah and appointing his son, but Carter prevented the coup)
Now we look at the implications
Deposing the Shah will empty the revolution of its goal to a large extent, especially if the army promises to restore democracy and reduce the powers of the Shah with the support of Princess Regent Farah.
Khomeini will die in exile and forgotten in France, or the army will kill him, often with other opponents
Without Khomeini, Saddam would not find a reason for the invasion, and therefore there would be no Iraqi-Iranian war, and this is a good thing, and he will continue to flourish and become a leading country in the Middle East.
(It would have become the first welfare state in the Middle East and became the first to completely eradicate illiteracy)
It will be a good thing for Saudi Arabia, because there is no Juhayman Al-Otaibi incident, and therefore no conservative reaction, and also no Muharram uprising, and therefore no very hostile reaction towards the Saudi Shiites.
This means a peaceful era for King Khalid, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s will be more like the current Saudi Arabia, and it may mean early reform.
The 1977 coup does not happen in Pakistan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto remains president and I will not hand him over to Pakistan (Pakistan will remain secular)
The 1980 coup does not take place in Turkey, and Bulent Ecevit remains the prime minister of Turkey, and this means a better situation for the Kurds, and there is no ban on their language, and the 1997 coup may not happen.
Economically, Iran will suffer due to the political turmoil, but after the country is transformed into democracy, the economy will recover and flourish
By 2022, Iran will become one of the 20 countries with an economy between the OTL level, the economy of Italy, the economy of South Korea and Argentina
Socially a mixture of OTL Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan
Politically similar to Morocco and Jordan (constitutional monarchy, but the Shah monitors and prevents any foolishness of the government)
The Lebanese war is shorter without the 1979 revolution, and Musa al-Sadr does not disappear
Assuming the fall of the Soviet Union
Iran will take this opportunity to expand and make the independent states puppets of Iran (annexation of Azerbaijan and Armenia and the imposition of puppet regimes in Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan
The United States may not support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and leave Iran to work, so an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan to restore stability is possible (the restoration of King Zahir Shah will happen often).
The prime ministers will be completely different, except for Abu al-Hasan Bani Sadr, I see him becoming prime minister (he has opposition capital)
The other is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a populist), and these are the only two whom the ayatollahs tolerated being elected by the people
Also, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who caused the crisis of 2009, sees him in an alternative reality as prime minister
Last edited:
False. The Grand Mosque seizure had nothing to do with Iran.
Al-Otaybi was a violent reactionary who hated that Saudi Arabia had become an ally of the West.
To quote Wikipedia:
"Al-Otaybi had turned against Ibn Baz 'and began advocating a return to the original ways of Islam, among other things: a repudiation of the West; abolition of television and expulsion of non-Muslims.' He proclaimed that 'the ruling Al-Saud dynasty had lost its legitimacy because it was corrupt, ostentatious and had destroyed Saudi culture by an aggressive policy of Westernization.'"
That's practically ASB.
Once the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. immediately began supporting the Mujahideen. Reagan famously made support of the Mujahideen a core part of his foreign policy.
To quote Wikipedia (again):
"The Reagan Doctrine was stated by United States President Ronald Reagan in his State of the Union address on February 6, 1985: 'We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives—on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.' It was a strategy implemented by the Reagan Administration to overwhelm the global influence of the Soviet Union in the late Cold War. The doctrine was a centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991."
He was also going to be dead by '82 or so. His kid and/or said kid's minders may well be less obstinate
Regardless of the political situation Iran would end up being very wealthy in this scenario. Way more developed than Turkey even.
They have fantastical oil wealth and this scenario would have no international sanctions placed on Iran. Imagine Saudi Arabia or UAE but also having a large native population that is well educated and also has large resource base aside from oil.
They will continue to be a strong US ally, meaning they benefit from those commercial ties. No rivalry with Israel. Won't be promoting radical Shiaism so no rivalry with Saudi Arabia/UAE. Iraq also only invaded because they thought post revolution Iran was weak, so Iraq would be too scared to challenge Iran in this scenario.
Iran is a very strategic location for overland trade routes so neighboring countries would also benefit. Pakistan could buy cheap oil without having to worry about US sanctions. Many butterflies in that country as well since lack of cheap energy is their biggest economic weakness.
They have fantastical oil wealth and this scenario would have no international sanctions placed on Iran. Imagine Saudi Arabia or UAE but also having a large native population that is well educated and also has large resource base aside from oil.
They will continue to be a strong US ally, meaning they benefit from those commercial ties. No rivalry with Israel. Won't be promoting radical Shiaism so no rivalry with Saudi Arabia/UAE. Iraq also only invaded because they thought post revolution Iran was weak, so Iraq would be too scared to challenge Iran in this scenario.
Iran is a very strategic location for overland trade routes so neighboring countries would also benefit. Pakistan could buy cheap oil without having to worry about US sanctions. Many butterflies in that country as well since lack of cheap energy is their biggest economic weakness.
One of the best Iran revolution takes I've read on here was like...15 years ago at this point? But the poster was saying that with a very limited democracy, powerful and shadowy security services, and the Shah acting as an occasionally very involved ultimate authority & symbolic figurehead, and mass uprisings every decade or so, a surviving Imperial Iran might wind up looking like....well, the Islamic Republic. It was an interesting argument.
EDIT: in my opinion, a lot of this really, really depends on at what point the revolution gets defused.
EDIT: in my opinion, a lot of this really, really depends on at what point the revolution gets defused.
If he survives a Khomeni-ist revolution one might expect to see an Ataturk like effort to reduce the influence of religion in society or to steer to a more tolerant Azeri Shiism. The Iran- Iraq war does not occur. Saddam thought it would be an easy victory as Iran was a pariah state without a superpower patron and it's army in disarray after the revolution. Neither condition would apply here. The big question would be the turnover of power. Would it go the Assad route where the seeming weakness of the heir translates in civil war or the Abdullah route where the heir is enough of a reformist to placate the people without threatening the privileges of the military. No Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as there is no debt to Kuwait nor the prestige of having defended the Sunni world to spur Saddam on. Shia Islam may go on to be considered "the peaceful Islam" as Sunni extremism begets Al Quida and ISIS without a Hizbollah counterpoint.
Several points
Azeri Shiaism isn't more "tolerant". Its just that decades of communist suppression made Azerbaijan more irreligious than Iran. Many Iranian revolutionary figures were Iranian Azeris like current Supreme Leader Khamenei.
Also the Iranian revolution was a big inspiration to all jihadis both Sunni and Shia. AQ and IS may well have been butterflied away especially if there is a different Afghanistan war and if the Gulf War never happens
Fair enough. I can't claim any expertise of Azeri culture within Iran. I suspect AQ and ISIS still form as the Saudis are still financing extremist ideology
AQ formed as a result of the Soviet-Afghanistan War, they turned anti-West and anti-Saudi after the Gulf War. ISIS was created in very specific conditions resulting from the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Extremist ideology was still being financed so some sort of militant groups with similar ideologies may arise, but who knows if they would still have the same global aspirations and anti-American bent.
I would love to see a democratic Iran. The Iranians I've had the pleasure of working with are all really nice down to earth people and Iran has so much history worth a trip to see.
As for the Shah, he was despotic and sadly believed his secret police regime was a good idea. The Ayatollah was not a nice guy either so you have two bad choices. A moderate Shah allowing the people to have some power even if it's a constitutional monarchy where the Shah is the permanent "President replacement" and has real power but mainly military and veto power etc would be an incredible power.
The 4 Kidd class destroyers, F-14's, F-16's etc would have made the Soviet Union very much aware of the need to keep the forces in the Southern Regions strong.
As for the Shah, he was despotic and sadly believed his secret police regime was a good idea. The Ayatollah was not a nice guy either so you have two bad choices. A moderate Shah allowing the people to have some power even if it's a constitutional monarchy where the Shah is the permanent "President replacement" and has real power but mainly military and veto power etc would be an incredible power.
The 4 Kidd class destroyers, F-14's, F-16's etc would have made the Soviet Union very much aware of the need to keep the forces in the Southern Regions strong.
IMO, that's where the Shah went wrong: that effort needed to be made in the 1960s as part of the White Revolution. A lot of the grievances that the religious leadership had against him came about from then.
There's an excellent thread from 2013 in which user Parterre (who may still be out there, somewhere!) puts forward a socioeconomic model that has Iran having about 20 million fewer people than in OTL, but being the 10th largest economy in the world with a GDP per capita comparable to the EU. Their timeline envisaged Iran's booming oil income in the 1970s being invested sensibly rather than spent, giving more sustainable growth and reducing discontent with the Shah.
The knock-on effects of the Pahlavis not falling are huge, and really demonstrate how important a regional player Iran is. If they become a major global economy, they'll become even more significant. I also suspect you see an earlier pivot towards the Pacific in US foreign policy: without a lot of the Middle Eastern trouble of OTL, containing China will become a priority earlier. And I expect that Iran will get into Great Power contests with China in Central Asia, too, reinforcing the US-Iran relationship.
Oh Parterre's thread looks really really interesting. I'm personally fascinated by the possibilities of a post-Shah revolutionary government that heavily tries to change class relations and reduce inequality in Iran but an alternate Pahlavi dyansty- as more of an MbZ style developmental, long term strategist, authoritarian- is interesting.
My two cents however? I think the Shah's cluelessness was a feature of his regime, not a bug and I see a continuing Pahlavi dynasty as a descent into a morass of mismanagement and social strife. Tbqh as kind of an Islamic Republic speedrun.
My two cents however? I think the Shah's cluelessness was a feature of his regime, not a bug and I see a continuing Pahlavi dynasty as a descent into a morass of mismanagement and social strife. Tbqh as kind of an Islamic Republic speedrun.
It's a general principle of mine that if you want to change events that depend on personalities, you need a PoD about 20 or 30 years before the events you're trying to change. In the case of Mohammed Reza Shah, the key decisions that led to the revolution were in the early 1970s, so avoiding it probably needs a PoD in the early 1950s.
Around the time of the oil crisis and the associated foreign intervention, in fact. I've become interested in a PoD where the British government reads the writing on the wall in 1951 and forces the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to agree to a 50/50 agreement on oil revenues. That eliminates the whole oil crisis, the associated disruption to the Iranian (and British!) economies, and removes the key drivers for Operation BOOT/AJAX - which was, in conception, a British operation; the CIA had to be convinced to support it.