Time will tell if the uprising in Iran against the current Islamic republic will translate into a regime change or a more short-term internal conflict. But what would turn the world upside down is a return to the monarchy in Iran. Reza Pahlavi, the son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the Shah of Iran), who was overthrown by the Shi’ite revolution in 1979, is waiting in the wings and poised to take the reins in Iran should the current regime fall.
Pahlavi’s prospects are doubtful. Though he has praised U.S. President Donald Trump for making noises about intervention on his behalf, Trump hasn’t really demonstrated any enthusiasm for installing Pahlavi. Trump has said little more than calling Pahlavi a nice guy, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Let me make this clear at the outset: Though a regime change in Iran would be a welcome development, a return to the monarchy would be a mistake. Pahlavi seems to want it both ways. When asked about his father’s repressive and brutal regime, he insists he is looking to the future. But on other occasions, Pahlavi has called for a return to the days of the Shah (which he has praised as free and prosperous).
Truth be told, freedom wasn’t a priority to the Shah (who died in 1980). The Shah deployed Savak, his secret police force, to crush all dissent in unambiguous fashion. Imprisonment and forced deportations, with more than a few executions, were the policies of the Shah. Ungrateful for the support the U.S. had extended to him throughout his reign, the Shah blamed the U.S. for his downfall.
His son, Reza Pahlavi, has implicated Democrats for his father’s demise and the rise of Shi’ite fundamentalism in Iran. No doubt, Pahlavi senses he will endear himself to Trump by using such partisan rhetoric. But all this proves is that Pahlavi has not learned from the mistakes of his father.
Of course, there is some precedent for U.S. intervention in Iran. In 1953, the United States joined British forces to topple the socialist regime of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and re-installed the Shah. It was an arrangement which seemed to have lasted 26 years, though as early as the sixties there were signs the Shah was losing his hold on Iran.
On the other hand, the recent assertion by Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) warning that the 1953 coup in Iran directly led to the rise of the Islamic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini was irresponsible. Political Islam was not on the radar in 1953. The monarchies of the Middle East were then under threat by secular forces such as Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and the socialist Ba’ath movements in Iraq and Syria.
Indeed, though political Islam in the region is very much a factor, it has not been a success in establishing national governments. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt came to power in 2011 only to be deposed by secular forces a few years later. In fact, the current regime in Iran is the only example in which aspirations of political Islam have been realized.
As for Iran, political Islam has very much failed its people, as Iranian society is choked by economic sanctions worldwide. Its people are restless and have grown impatient with the regime’s tired habit of blaming the nation’s ills on the United States and Israel. And Iran’s proxy wars by way of Hamas and Hezbollah are very much in twilight.
But these realities hardly make the case for a return to the monarchy in Iran. In due time, there will be secular options in Iran absent the taint of both monarchy and political Islam. President Trump has indicated a preference for waiting to see further developments in Iran. What is clear is that the people of Iran are anxious for change. Unfortunately, change in Iran will be neither swift nor painless. There is little choice but to accept Trump’s current wait and see policy.
John O’Neill is an Allen Park freelance writer. He is a graduate of Wayne State University.
