It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment.
New Iran, new experiment. You bet Iranians are euphoric right now. Some of the country's brightest intellectuals and political minds are sitting in Evin prison, and if all goes well, they're about to walk out and help shape what comes next.
My dad is worried about the power vacuum, and he's right to be. His biggest concern is the border states and the narrative that ISIS is being funneled into the country to destroy any chance of organized transition. I desperately hope he's wrong. And I don't think he'll ever fully heal — few who lived through the first revolution will.
> It's less a revolution and more a matter of catching the tide of shifting world powers — and seizing a rare shot at building something other than the last failed experiment
The Arab spring wasn't that long ago, was it? We all saw how that turned out, but I suppose hope springs eternal.
> You bet Iranians are euphoric right now
I'm guessing the 50+ dead elementary school kids may put a damper on celebrations a bit.
I think you are speaking about the last Shah's first son: Reza Pahlavi. You can read about his planned policy for Iran here: https://rezapahlavi.org/en
To quote:
> For the transition from the Islamic Republic to a national, secular, and democratic government
One idea is to transition to a secular democracy with a figurehead Shah like a northern European (or Japanese) monarchy. Also, my personal opinion: I think it is fine if they want to incorporate aspects of Islamic religious culture into their government. After all, it is their country. Example: The national parliament and political parties might be required to secular (at least in name), but they may wish to continue to support religious institutions using tax payer money, including masjids (places of prayer) and Islamic monasteries.
An interesting point of comparison: (1) Malaysia isn't really secular (but they may claim it); (2) Singapore is fully secular; (3) Indonesia is secular (or "pan-religious"), but is still largely guided by Islamic relgious culture in their democractic systems.
What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing. The former Shah's regime was really bad and paved the way for everything that happened afterwards. Between the SAVAK (which tortured and executed quite a few of those in opposition to the Shah regime) and excesses like Persepolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500-year_celebration_of_the_... ) there was created an atmosphere in which the mullahs seemed like a viable alternative.
To return to a scion of the man who put that all in place would - in my opinion, of course - be a massive mistake.
Keep in mind that the Shah was a client of the United States and the United Kingdom and that his son isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart but because he wants what he thinks is his birthright back (he's been pretty vocal about that since his late teens), and that he has been living off wealth stolen from the Iranian people and squirreled out of the country by his father.
Of course he would present this as a transition but just wait until his ass hits that pluche and see if it isn't going to take another revolution to dislodge him.
This comment is weird. The Shah's son != the Shah. Reza Pahlavi left Iran when he was 17. The Shah fell the following year. All of the issues that you raise are perpetrated by his father. His son was not responsible.
> What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing.
Not much being said here. This is true for anybody anywhere anytime. You might as well write: true == true.
