[Apocryphon]

You can claim that Mossadegh was no angel, but the Shah was even worse:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1980/03/23/t...

This apologist article damns the Shah with faint praise- perhaps there had been improvements under the Pahlavis in the latter days of the regime, but there were flagrant abuses under the SAVAK secret police in the early '70s to 1976- in engaging in such brutality, and in botching the land reform of the White Revolution, Mohammad Reza tied his own noose.

[eternalban]

I have said precisely zero about the character of the late Dr. Mossadegh or the late Shahanshah of Iran. What I have pointed out is the curious case of canned narrative peddled by Western and Iranian propaganda organs.

But speaking of "angels", I'd say SAVAK was angelic compared to CIA, MI6, MOSSAD & KGB and their record of "brutality".

p.s. Regrettably you likely do not speak Farsi, but this BBC Persian show brings together a former SAVAK, National Front, and Fadeyeen Khalgh (militant terrorist Left) gentlemen including the historian who wrote a quite interesting book on Sabeti (SAVAK thinking end) and it is interesting how at the end of episode 2 they all wonder at how they agree that the poor "evil" "fascist" "puppet" Shah's regime was far far more civilized and gentle than the actual thugs of the so called Islamic Republic of Iran.

part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNFfdb-LKII

part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnMZUcAfJg

[Apocryphon]

On the contrary, you've described the governance of the short-lived rule of Mossadegh compared to Mohammad Reza.

You know, to criticize the Shah does not mean to praise the ayatollahs. Nor does to criticize the ayatollahs mean one has to praise the shah. His misrule and cruelties, no matter how nominal when compared in a fit of whataboutism, simply emboldened his enemies and led to revolution. In some ways, you can lay the atrocities of the successive regimes on his bloody follies.

[eternalban]

There is plenty to criticize about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's reign. You however are not expressing a 'critical' position. You are merely echoing propaganda.

What misrule? (Curious as to the lengths and depths of your studies of modern Iranian history.)

During the 50 years of Pahlavi dynasty, Iran went from being a basket case toy of England and Russia to a nation that was actually posing strategic problems for Western imperialists in the 70s (so he had to go).

It is not whataboutism to direct your gaze to the proverbial mirror. By what standard is this "brutality" of SAVAK measured?

Tell me: how many innocent civilians were killed during terrorist activity of leftist guerillas in the 70s in Iran? Do you have a clue?

[Apocryphon]

Again, one does not have to defend the actions of any guerrilla or terrorist organization, in order to lament the brutality of Pahlavi rule. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to cast him as a victim of Western imperialism, rather than another Fulgencio Batista or Ngo Dinh Diem who overplayed his hand and failed to carry out the sufficient land reform to appease the working classes and the peasantry.

[eternalban]

Again,

When I introduce Mr. X to an audience, I may choose a distinguishing characteristic.

To claim that the 'distinguishing' or 'characteristic', or 'essential character' of Shah of Iran was "tyranny" or "brutality" is egregious. Historical facts simply do not reflect that.