Post by lordroel on Jan 4, 2017 15:48:36 GMT
What if the Shah of Iran had remained: 37 years later
In 1979, after a long campaign of political pressure applied by the Carter administration in the United States, the Shah of Iran fell to the Islamic Revolution, ending a tradition of monarchic rule that had persisted in Iran for thousands of years since the rule of Cyrus the Great. The stage was set for the rise of the Ayatollah, and the establishment of a theocracy in Iran that, today, most Iranians do not even want. But what if none of that had ever happened? While a momentous departure from actual history, it is not nearly so far-fetched as it sounds. It isn't difficult to imagine that, beset by strife as the Shah was at the time, the opposition of a major world power like the United States was the final straw that brought the monarchy to an end, and it is not even clear why President Carter chose to engage in such opposition. While there were some human rights concerns taking place under the Shah, as Carter noted, these pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the sorts of Islamic extremists that have since risen to power in Iran and found a more conducive environment in the Middle East generally. Let's see what else would have been different had Carter relented, and the Shah remained.
With the Islamic Revolution never occurring, Iran under the Shah enters into the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan is elected President in the United States. Always a supporter of Iran in general and the Shah in particular, Reagan continues the close friendship that had long existed between the nations. Other nations also respect and appreciate Iran's moderation, leading to the establishing of alliances with many African countries, as well as India and Japan. Iran, meanwhile, having never supported a single terrorist organization, continues to shun extremism under its strong secular government. Perhaps most significantly, cultural exchange with the West prospers greatly, with many young Iranian students studying abroad at American universities, where they are exposed to Western ideals of freedom and democracy. Developing a taste for these values themselves, the seeds of organic change are planted when these young people return home.
Hostilities do persist between Iran's Shah and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, but strong ties with the United States ensure that Iran receives the finest military support with which to defend itself when necessary. Meanwhile, as a non-partisan nation comprised mostly of Persians as opposed to either Arabs or Jews Iran finds itself in a strong mediatorial role in the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, neither of whom see reason to distrust a local presence with no vested interest in their fight.
Towards the end of the 1980's, demonstrations for democracy have begun and spread wildly in Iran. Never a repressive ruler in the vein of the Muslim theocrats, the Shah is content mostly to allow these demonstrations, which build in intensity over time, and even to initiate limited political reforms in response. Iran is on the way to becoming a representative democratic state.
As the world economy stagnates and recession looms, the Shah is faced with further challenges in Iran. Influenced by his strong, mutually beneficial relationship with the West and especially the United States, he responds by massively privatizing the Iranian economy, leading the foundations of free enterprise to emerge. However, unemployment still soars as a result of the world's strained financial conditions, leading to further protests. By the time the 1990's are over and the 2000's have arrived, the pressure has reached critical mass, and the Shah agrees to institute a constitutional monarchy in Iran, essentially sharing away the majority of his administrative authority. An elected Prime Minister and parliament come to power, with a President appointed by them. With this, Iran becomes one of the only democracies in the Middle East, effectively cementing its already long friendship with the United States.
Demonstrating their trustworthiness almost immediately, Iran is at the forefront of the fight against terror in the aftermath of 9/11. Already watchful of the small but dangerous extremist Islamic element within the nation, these terrorists are now actively sought out and suppressed. Support is offered to the American military campaign in the Middle East, with flights to Iraq being suspended. Intelligence is shared with the US and joint covert anti-terrorism operations are conducted by the two nations in cooperative tandem. American efforts are strengthened and made more efficient by the local ally, and while the activity still threatens to destabilize the Middle East, the democratic Iran's unwavering support eases the jitters of the oil market, reducing upward pressure on gas prices in the US.
As the Arab Spring takes hold after the American invasions, Iran continues to work toward forwarding the interests of the United States, applying its now considerable diplomatic clout to opposing the installation of theocratic rulers in Arab nations deposing secular dictators. As nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar attempt to spread their extreme flavor of Sunni Islam, called Wahhabi, Iran's mostly Muslim but overwhelmingly peaceful population support the more moderate Shiaism. The Middle East prospers from this sobering influence, as Iran grows ever stronger and eventually seeks to strengthen its independence from the United States. While the two remain close allies, Iran grows into its own democracy, inspired by but now different from America.
None of these hypothetical scenarios require any great leap of faith. In fact, it could be argued that they represent the simplest logical extension of the consequences of a saner foreign policy from the United States towards Iran. In actual history, of course, the US seems to have spared no effort to antagonize and degrade Iran at every turn, shutting out a peaceful, progressive people simply asking for support in developing their own democracy. Sadly, Barack Obama seems to hold no interest in reversing this trend. Perhaps the next President will; one must only hope the people of Iran can hold on until 2017.
In 1979, after a long campaign of political pressure applied by the Carter administration in the United States, the Shah of Iran fell to the Islamic Revolution, ending a tradition of monarchic rule that had persisted in Iran for thousands of years since the rule of Cyrus the Great. The stage was set for the rise of the Ayatollah, and the establishment of a theocracy in Iran that, today, most Iranians do not even want. But what if none of that had ever happened? While a momentous departure from actual history, it is not nearly so far-fetched as it sounds. It isn't difficult to imagine that, beset by strife as the Shah was at the time, the opposition of a major world power like the United States was the final straw that brought the monarchy to an end, and it is not even clear why President Carter chose to engage in such opposition. While there were some human rights concerns taking place under the Shah, as Carter noted, these pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the sorts of Islamic extremists that have since risen to power in Iran and found a more conducive environment in the Middle East generally. Let's see what else would have been different had Carter relented, and the Shah remained.
With the Islamic Revolution never occurring, Iran under the Shah enters into the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan is elected President in the United States. Always a supporter of Iran in general and the Shah in particular, Reagan continues the close friendship that had long existed between the nations. Other nations also respect and appreciate Iran's moderation, leading to the establishing of alliances with many African countries, as well as India and Japan. Iran, meanwhile, having never supported a single terrorist organization, continues to shun extremism under its strong secular government. Perhaps most significantly, cultural exchange with the West prospers greatly, with many young Iranian students studying abroad at American universities, where they are exposed to Western ideals of freedom and democracy. Developing a taste for these values themselves, the seeds of organic change are planted when these young people return home.
Hostilities do persist between Iran's Shah and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, but strong ties with the United States ensure that Iran receives the finest military support with which to defend itself when necessary. Meanwhile, as a non-partisan nation comprised mostly of Persians as opposed to either Arabs or Jews Iran finds itself in a strong mediatorial role in the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, neither of whom see reason to distrust a local presence with no vested interest in their fight.
Towards the end of the 1980's, demonstrations for democracy have begun and spread wildly in Iran. Never a repressive ruler in the vein of the Muslim theocrats, the Shah is content mostly to allow these demonstrations, which build in intensity over time, and even to initiate limited political reforms in response. Iran is on the way to becoming a representative democratic state.
As the world economy stagnates and recession looms, the Shah is faced with further challenges in Iran. Influenced by his strong, mutually beneficial relationship with the West and especially the United States, he responds by massively privatizing the Iranian economy, leading the foundations of free enterprise to emerge. However, unemployment still soars as a result of the world's strained financial conditions, leading to further protests. By the time the 1990's are over and the 2000's have arrived, the pressure has reached critical mass, and the Shah agrees to institute a constitutional monarchy in Iran, essentially sharing away the majority of his administrative authority. An elected Prime Minister and parliament come to power, with a President appointed by them. With this, Iran becomes one of the only democracies in the Middle East, effectively cementing its already long friendship with the United States.
Demonstrating their trustworthiness almost immediately, Iran is at the forefront of the fight against terror in the aftermath of 9/11. Already watchful of the small but dangerous extremist Islamic element within the nation, these terrorists are now actively sought out and suppressed. Support is offered to the American military campaign in the Middle East, with flights to Iraq being suspended. Intelligence is shared with the US and joint covert anti-terrorism operations are conducted by the two nations in cooperative tandem. American efforts are strengthened and made more efficient by the local ally, and while the activity still threatens to destabilize the Middle East, the democratic Iran's unwavering support eases the jitters of the oil market, reducing upward pressure on gas prices in the US.
As the Arab Spring takes hold after the American invasions, Iran continues to work toward forwarding the interests of the United States, applying its now considerable diplomatic clout to opposing the installation of theocratic rulers in Arab nations deposing secular dictators. As nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar attempt to spread their extreme flavor of Sunni Islam, called Wahhabi, Iran's mostly Muslim but overwhelmingly peaceful population support the more moderate Shiaism. The Middle East prospers from this sobering influence, as Iran grows ever stronger and eventually seeks to strengthen its independence from the United States. While the two remain close allies, Iran grows into its own democracy, inspired by but now different from America.
None of these hypothetical scenarios require any great leap of faith. In fact, it could be argued that they represent the simplest logical extension of the consequences of a saner foreign policy from the United States towards Iran. In actual history, of course, the US seems to have spared no effort to antagonize and degrade Iran at every turn, shutting out a peaceful, progressive people simply asking for support in developing their own democracy. Sadly, Barack Obama seems to hold no interest in reversing this trend. Perhaps the next President will; one must only hope the people of Iran can hold on until 2017.