[_cs2017_]

The article you linked is written by a little known author, Abdullah Safi, who wrote articles against atheism. He clearly dislikes the Shah rule. What reason do we have to trust him?

Furthermore, even if we trust him to be unbiased (I don't), he only says that people who were fighting against the Shah (the armed rebels, the Communist supporters, etc) didn't enjoy a good life. He doesn't say that the Shah gave trouble to the regular people who weren't trying to overthrow the government.

[sleepyhead]

I just Googled and found an article so I am sure there are better sources, however it shouldn't be controversial to say that the Shah, who came in power through a foreign coup, was a dictator. It is the reason why the revolution was able to succeed. Obviously life under the Shah was much better than after the revolution but that is not to say there were not problems before it.

[_cs2017_]

I don't think anyone claims that there were no problems in Iran under the Shah. Or in the US for that matter.

FWIW, every single person I talked to who lived in Tehran during the Shah said it was great. However, I know It's a biased sample. For one, none of them were Communist sympathizers. And even more importantly, they all emigrated. Maybe if I talked to people who live in Tehran now, they'd also say it's great, who knows.