What do you mean by that? Do you think that the Shah was in his heart a peaceful man who had to use violent means to stay in power?
No, I mean that the Shah seems to have had a gentle temperament and no stomach for violence or ruthlessness, but who also wanted to be seen as the strict, strong father-figure of the nation, who smote his enemies and protected his children.
None of the biographies I've read of him have portrayed him as having the strength of character to be a peaceful man.
He seems to have had a very strong need to please people, whether those people be the rioters in his capital, his advisors or his (inaccurate) picture of the ordinary Iranian.
I hope the Iranians realized now that there are things worse than the SAVAK.
The Iranians I meet don't think much of modern Iran's security apparatus (which was created by the Republic executing all the top people in SAVAK and then re-hiring the middle managers on down and giving them
even more power to spy, torture, kill and oppress), but the Shah is still reviled and the Islamic Republic is still seen as being a great improvement for the majority of Iranians.
And I generally meet the Iranians who have fled West because they or their families were persecuted - these are not friends of the current regime.
It says something to me when I meet a man who is to this day disabled because of the tortures the Republic goons inflicted on him STILL thinks the Islamic Republic is an improvement over the Shah.
fasquardon