The Question Must be Asked: Should we re-install the Shah?

[Sanaz]

O, please
The Shah was a great leader, its just the Nazis within Iran didnt want him..

This is just a silly statement. The Shah was horrible. The current government has lots of problems, but it isn't easy to say it is better than what was there before. All said, it is probably now, but they are different enough that a straight comparison is not really accurate.

Iran is a Republic, and they do have elections. The elected government has little to no power, of course, and any moderate candidates are removed from the ballot, so it is far from a good, positive example of a Republic, but it is a Republic nonetheless.

Removing the current government to return the Shah woud be a mistake. (Of course he's dead, so that would be a bit disgusting.) But if he were alive and became leader then it would be a step sideways, or maybe slightly forward or back, but not true progress. If it were possible to have a true election, the Shah wouldn't have a chance in today's Iran. There are some movements to bring the Shah's son to power, but they are fringe movements based in Europe.

In short, there needs to be a change in Iran, it needs to come from within, and the result will be more moderate than what the Shah was.

 

[Alvaro da Luna]

Any democratic government established in Iran wouldn't exactly cowtow to American interest any more than the Ayatollahs do. Afterall, they're looking to be the suppliers of their resources at a PROFITABLE price. The only means by which a foreign power can corrupt the system to its own benefit - getting preferential treatment at a preferential price - is to have their own man in charge. In a democracy, no one is going to agree to act as a powerbase for a foreign power, and no one is going to vote to lower the price of their oil to another power's interest. Only an absolutistist regime like the Shah's would agree to those restrictions... in exchange for support in upholding the regime, of course.

Some links of interest:
Here
Interesting to note that it was a popular revolution and not a military-type junta.

Here
This is only a Wikipedia article... it's brief so you'd probably prefer to read a book. In any case, notice the details of the Shah's dictatorship. Furthermore, notice how the popular revolution eventually adopted Islamism as its focus when it only began as a reaction to the Shah's excesses. So, popular revolutions tend to take on unifying trends that are familiar and satisfying in terrms of freedom. I need not comment on the subsequent corruption of the new regime, but during its conception phase, it was probably very attractive as a tool of freedom. And yes, Islam does have free and democratic aspects.

 

[amadeus]

It isn't about oil, Luna. It's about the United States or Israel not being vaporized by some nutcase in Tehran.

 

[Hamlet]

The Shah was a great leader, its just the Nazis within Iran didnt want him..

Are you trolling?

 

[vonork]

No; and therefore, he can have an objective view on the nation and its status, one that is not clouded by deep emotional ties.

I'm sorry, but somebody had to say it. You have clearly demonstrated a pro-Iranian and pro-Islamic bias in your CFC career. An expected and perhaps understandable one, but a bias nonetheless.

uhm, that would disqualify most poster in various subjects... perhaps even you as you have clearly demonstrated a negative iranian bias

 

[EdwardTking]

No

Absolute monarchy is an obsolete concept and symbolic
monarchy (such as the UK enjoys under Queen Elizabeth II,
and the Vatican under Pope John Paul II) only works where
there is some degree of democracy and rules understood.

A foreign controlled puppet monarchy would be accepted by nobody.

 

[stormbind]

We should not do anything. It's not our nation.

 

[Stapel]

It was MUCH worse before the revolution. My family and friends witnessed before and after. The Shah was sooo corrupt. He made Saddam look like a super nice guy.

I think Saddam and the Shah can indeed be compared. But still, the Ayatollah is a nasty bastard. All three of them are evil.

BTW: I used to work for two years with an Iranian refugee (he is Dutch now), and he fled from the Ayatollah. I'm not sure what's worse, before or after.

 

[Hamlet]

We should not do anything. It's not our nation.

Poland in 1939 was not our nation. Kuwait in 1990 was not our nation. Rwanda and Kosovo were not our nation. Etc.

 

[stormbind]

Poland in 1939 was not our nation. Kuwait in 1990 was not our nation. Rwanda and Kosovo were not our nation. Etc.

When they ask for our help, that changes the situation considerably.

 

[Hamlet]

When they ask for our help, that changes the situation considerably.

How would you define "asking for help"? What standard is required? The Serbian government certainly didn't "ask" for us to intervene in Kosovo, and neither did Rwanda's government, if I recall.

If all that's required for intervention is some degree of serious injustice and/or oppression, then your original statement is a tad vacuous; 'We can never, never, never intervene, except when some we feel it's morally neccesary!'

 

[luiz]

On a side note, my physics professor at the University is an Iranian refugee. He says that the Shah was terrible, but the ayatollahs are even worse.

At least under the Shah women had equal rights...

 

[Free Enterprise]

Nah, the Shah was terrible too.

It doesn't make sense to wage a bloody and costy war to install someone almost as evil as the one you're deposing.

This is similar to what I think.

Installing a despot means that you are responsible for the actions this person commits somewhat. If you install a dictator who does not have a sufficient human rights record then there is culpability.

If you were looking at the economic costs only (which you should not be) it will still would probably be more expensive in the long run to back a new despot and garner disdain.

It is very important Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons however it is dubious an invasion would be an effective solution.

 

[stormbind]

How would you define "asking for help"? What standard is required? The Serbian government certainly didn't "ask" for us to intervene in Kosovo, and neither did Rwanda's government, if I recall.

If we respect democracy, we respect the will of the people, and we should act when their people ask us to.

If we don't respect democracy, then there isn't any point in discussing our opinions

 

[Hamlet]

If we respect democracy, we respect the will of the people, and we should act when their people ask us to.

This is a total fudge of the question. Which people? How would you define the "will of the people"?

You still have not defined, accurately or in any clear fashion, the circumstances in which you think intervention is justified.

 

[Sanaz]

It isn't about oil, Luna. It's about the United States or Israel not being vaporized by some nutcase in Tehran.

And it's about Iran not being vaporized by some nutjob in Israel or the United States, which is much more likely. You are right, Iran isn't about oil, it's about irrational fear and American imperialism. So what's new?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Sims do you think there might be a reason why the Americans can't just go in and put back in the Shah?

Why not just try and reform the country to democracy from theocracy through soft-power? Once they get nukes soft power might be the only choice.