WI: The Shah in Iran didn't get backed by the US and UK after 1960?

What if, for some odd reason, the US and UK did not want to do anything with Iran at around 1960? What would happen to the Shah?

If it's not possible, feel free to debate.
 
This would likely have a positive effect, deflating the Shah to reality and a more stable, grounded position. Instead he elevated himself to be 'the king of kings' with grand party causing fatal fissures in his political machine. Taken a knock down, he would have tried harder, Avis.

And to stabilize the inevitable hardship of a more potent Soviet undermining (left wing, which is likely to have made the Shah more open to mending fences with the right wing radical clerics), he would have funneled more profits of the presumed still active OTL oil shock increases into religious charities and social welfare, so to keep the peace.

And much less, if any, adventuring/posturing in the Persian/Arab gulf states circa 1976. His son or other heirs might very well still be on the throne today.
 
The problem is, what reason would the USA and UK have for not backing the Shah after 1960? The pro-British Iraqi monarchy had not long been overthrown and Nasser was proving troublesome, so the West is even less likely to throw the Shah overboard at this stage.
 
The problem is, what reason would the USA and UK have for not backing the Shah after 1960? The pro-British Iraqi monarchy had not long been overthrown and Nasser was proving troublesome, so the West is even less likely to throw the Shah overboard at this stage.


The reason for being distant is not overplaying one's hand, as evetually
took place. While not clear for this thread, which had UK/US not wanting
"anything" to do with the Shah for some reason, a plausible answer in
perfect hindsight would have been to maintain a polite & diffident distance
so to let the Shah find his own way. The CIA was a crutch, and when
Carter pulled the prop away there was no one around to knit a new Shah
for Iran. Pun intended.
 
Top