[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.