Fascinating discussion. I’ve been reading Scott Anderson’s King of Kings which I can thoroughly recommend by way of background to the current situation.
It's funny, I hadn't read these comments before I reposted my comment with "Fascinating!" It seems to be the word that describes this post. So much excellent insight and history here. Indeed fascinating!
Thank you. How much of this does the US government understand? Do they pick and choose the factors they prefer? Many Americans are trying to figure this out.
I recall an interview with a US government official in a BBC documentary, where he said that Iran offered some cooperation in the aftermath of 9/11, but after Bush's Axis of Evil speech, "that door was closed, and it has not reopened".
I'd love to ask about the role of the (former) monarchy. I always has the impression that it was ancient history and completely marginalised, but during the January uprising it became much more prominent. I'm not in a position to say this was Pahlavi cynically attempting to insert himself into something happening independently or him seeing a genuine opportunity and thinking he could respond to calls for a unifying transitional leadership figure... Either way, it seemed that within Iran there were calls of support for him in a way there hadn't been before.
Outside of the country his role seems to have been more divisive. Monarchists seem (at least in the UK) to have dominated the activity of the political opposition / expat community, and in a way that to me appears to have been unhelpful. It's made the opposition appear dogmatic and exclusive. (I think you can distinguish between what Pahlavi was saying and what his keenest supporters were saying, but the end result was an external opposition that didn't look to me as representative as it needed to be.)
So I'd really love to know how you see the role he / his supporters play. Are they a distraction? Do they have more widespread support inside Iran now than previously?
The comparison with Franco’s regime in Spain would be true up until the time Franco died in 1975. Then all the apparatus that he had assembled to maintain his power collapsed at his death. In Iran they are on their third Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards are as powerful as ever. There are 90 million of them controlled by 165,000 Revolutionary Guards. Surely the state is run like the Soviet Union with a cowed population policed by thugs with guns. Even the Soviet Union collapsed on its own incompetence. One thing is certain and that is that no Western country will ever intervene in an Islamic State ever again.
I wish I shared the optimism implied by your last sentence!
An important element that is often ignored is that, while Iran is an Islamic country, it is not an Arab country. It is also potentially a powerful and wealthy country, not just because of its oil but because of all the other elements in its resources, culture and history.
Fascinating discussion. I’ve been reading Scott Anderson’s King of Kings which I can thoroughly recommend by way of background to the current situation.
An editing point: Bozorgmehr means ‘emigration’ from Iran in his final comment, unless he means immigration into USA.
Thanks - fixed!
It's funny, I hadn't read these comments before I reposted my comment with "Fascinating!" It seems to be the word that describes this post. So much excellent insight and history here. Indeed fascinating!
Fascinating discussion which deserves to be more widely discussed.
Thank you. How much of this does the US government understand? Do they pick and choose the factors they prefer? Many Americans are trying to figure this out.
Very enlightening discussion - thank you all!
I recall an interview with a US government official in a BBC documentary, where he said that Iran offered some cooperation in the aftermath of 9/11, but after Bush's Axis of Evil speech, "that door was closed, and it has not reopened".
Thank you for this incredibly interesting piece.
I'd love to ask about the role of the (former) monarchy. I always has the impression that it was ancient history and completely marginalised, but during the January uprising it became much more prominent. I'm not in a position to say this was Pahlavi cynically attempting to insert himself into something happening independently or him seeing a genuine opportunity and thinking he could respond to calls for a unifying transitional leadership figure... Either way, it seemed that within Iran there were calls of support for him in a way there hadn't been before.
Outside of the country his role seems to have been more divisive. Monarchists seem (at least in the UK) to have dominated the activity of the political opposition / expat community, and in a way that to me appears to have been unhelpful. It's made the opposition appear dogmatic and exclusive. (I think you can distinguish between what Pahlavi was saying and what his keenest supporters were saying, but the end result was an external opposition that didn't look to me as representative as it needed to be.)
So I'd really love to know how you see the role he / his supporters play. Are they a distraction? Do they have more widespread support inside Iran now than previously?
The comparison with Franco’s regime in Spain would be true up until the time Franco died in 1975. Then all the apparatus that he had assembled to maintain his power collapsed at his death. In Iran they are on their third Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards are as powerful as ever. There are 90 million of them controlled by 165,000 Revolutionary Guards. Surely the state is run like the Soviet Union with a cowed population policed by thugs with guns. Even the Soviet Union collapsed on its own incompetence. One thing is certain and that is that no Western country will ever intervene in an Islamic State ever again.
I wish I shared the optimism implied by your last sentence!
An important element that is often ignored is that, while Iran is an Islamic country, it is not an Arab country. It is also potentially a powerful and wealthy country, not just because of its oil but because of all the other elements in its resources, culture and history.