Gregg Carlstrom, the Economist's Middle East guy, a couple days ago, paraphrased:
"The Arab states have been advising the U.S. to not get involved. Reasons of Ayatollah is gone, there's no clue who or what replaces him and could result in chaotic state in Iran that could spill over.
No doubt said the Arabs said that six months ago too but got nowhere
(A couple of the guys that could've replaced him as leader and kept things steady have been killed by the U.S. or Israel.) As well as Iran's status in the Middle East has been reduced and they're no longer seen as much of a threat as they were.
Because they prefer a weaker enemy to a stronger equal because they would lose out. A free Iran to them is as scary as the Arab spring. Restive youth issues will put more pressure on them to loosen up as well.
What's more the rejection of Iranians for Islam has been quite revealing. Over three hundred mosques set alight. This country will likely become the first ex Muslim state. I've learnt it's not a muslim majority country and religious adherence with the young is even less.
Iranians want religion seperated from state affairs and relegated to the private space.
By the way, the whole "the Shah's son can come in from living in Virginia and run the country" is one of the most tone-deaf foreign policy ideas I've ever heard. It screams Ahmed Chalabi
No other name is being chanted in the protests. Whether inside or abroad. So this is who a sizable demographic wants. The chant 'Javid Shah' means long live the king.
The Shah has a legacy going back to 1906 when Iran became a constitutional monarchy. So Iran had a history as a secular democracy.
Who is Chalabi in comparison? Nobody.
You're also incorrect about the Shah's son 'running the country'. His role will be to lead the transition to a stable government. One that is secular and a constitutional monarchy. Monarchs that are above party politics are a more sustainable configuration than republics in the middle east. They had to beg him to lead because his concern was always about legitimacy. Whether or not enough people supported him.
Once the regime falls, defectors hold the IRGC back and make way for the crown prince to return. Note that the Shah never abdicated. His son ascended the throne and remains in exile. There is a
transition plan in the works. T
his is the hopeful outcome. Spain transitioned from a dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy.
Another possibility is a military dictatorship. Clerics sidelined. IRGC takes over. Status quo continues and yet another fight is needed.
I feel we're past the point of no return for this regime.
not to mention there's everything historical for why the Ayatollahs even came to power to start with.
Meaning what?
The Shah was not an authoritarian dictator. That is leftie + islamist propaganda (ie. lies) to justify the coup in '79. Yes, I'm calling it a coup. The lefties managed to topple the Shah and were then brutally finished off by the Islamists a couple of years after.
The Shah could have remained in power if he cracked down on protests. But he chose not to as it would lead to blood shed and went into exile. Some dictator he turned out to be.
The very people he uplifted ended up working against him. University students sent abroad sponsored by the state got enamoured with communism and then revolted when they returned.
He gave women the right to vote. What dictator does that. In the end the support by Carter, UK & France for Khomeini worked against him.
Nixon has the Shah right here. He considered the Shah a personal friend and with Sadat were the only two leaders of note at his funeral in 1980
Too bad Nixon wasn't in office when the Shah faced opposition.
How Khomeini was ever seen as better has got to be one of the best con jobs of the last century. An Iranian Gandhi he was made out to be
If you want a good laugh, read the last para...
One more point. Khomeini was caught for something in '49 and sentenced to death in' 51. The Shah commuted his sentence to exile in Iraq. Saving this animal's life.
Also considering the flowering Saudi-Emirati rivalry at the moment in the region, the idea seems pretty Emirati-pushed of they're scared of democracy
You know it's funny that the only two countries calling out the slaughter of the Iranian people are the US and Israel. Not a single middle eastern state or muslim country has said anything. Even the moderate Emiratis have been silent.
Whenever Iranians assemble in front of the American embassy you expect them to chant death to America and burn the American flag. These days they're chanting death to the dictator and wanting Trump to go after the Islamic dictatorship and blow it off the face of the earth. Completely destroy them.
because they see it as just leading to Muslim Brotherhood types taking power, so put in another monarch.
The present Islamic republic is already the shia equivalent of the muslim brotherhood. 47 years old and counting.
time.com
