The sooner they are gone, the better.

That being said, fuck Pahlavi unless he favors democracy in Iran and not restoring his family to power.

Case in point, Afghanistan. The last Shah had many problems, but at least he allowed women basic rights, something the Ayatollah does not.

I wouldn’t call SAVAK just a problem.

We have a long history of supporting RW dictators. And Iran was a total cock-up by us and the Brits.

Sure, many countries have had little to no experience with democracy. That being said there have been countries that transitioned successfully. And it takes a populace that wants to drive change.

He has spoken at length and depth about being a transitional figure. What other scenarios do you see for going from a Shia Mullacracy to something resembling a pluralistic representative form of government?

Castro spoke of not left or right but straight ahead at the start of the Revolution

Pinochet spoke of a “protected democracy”

The problem arises from a singular figure who claims authority which has, imo, the tendency to devolve into charlatanism where no one can question the “leader”.

but at some point we have to trust some leadership to provide a transition. A military occupation by outside forces has its own perils.

against the upcoming Iraq invasion by GWB …

We were called a fringe focus group

.............The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency says at least 7,005 people were killed in last month’s protests, including 214 government forces. It has been accurate in counting deaths during previous rounds of unrest in Iran and relies on a network of activists inside Iran to verify deaths.

Iran’s government offered its only death toll on Jan. 21, saying 3,117 people were killed. Iran’s theocracy in the past has undercounted or not reported fatalities from past unrest.

By SAVAK.

... and certainly not under the former rule of the Pahlavi monarchy.

I don't dispute the sincerity of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi in the efforts to topple the current regime. However I do question his intention to replace it with some form of "democracy." The long-suffering people of Iran need to be wary.

Perhaps they'll even rename it Persia again. It sounds so much better than Iran.

Iran was chosen as the country name in 1935 as more inclusive of its inhabitants.

Hopefully, after all this time, they will realize the Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution was far less inclusive than going back to the name Persia. I think it's a good tradeoff, don't ya think? No more Ayatollah, go back to Persia. Ahh, it won't happen, but I can always dream...

Persia is poetic, but Iran is hard like iron. While we're at it, I prefer the old name of Burma also.

in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. The name Iran precedes the 1979 revolution by 44 years and if they want to keep the name I'll honor their choice.

Persia is what people outside the area called it. Both are historical names for the area.

Going back to the Shah seems like a really shitty idea.

I highly doubt anyone is going to restore the monarchy. Pahlavi makes the news because he's a public figure.