[jacquesm]

What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing. The former Shah's regime was really bad and paved the way for everything that happened afterwards. Between the SAVAK (which tortured and executed quite a few of those in opposition to the Shah regime) and excesses like Persepolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500-year_celebration_of_the_... ) there was created an atmosphere in which the mullahs seemed like a viable alternative.

To return to a scion of the man who put that all in place would - in my opinion, of course - be a massive mistake.

Keep in mind that the Shah was a client of the United States and the United Kingdom and that his son isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart but because he wants what he thinks is his birthright back (he's been pretty vocal about that since his late teens), and that he has been living off wealth stolen from the Iranian people and squirreled out of the country by his father.

Of course he would present this as a transition but just wait until his ass hits that pluche and see if it isn't going to take another revolution to dislodge him.

[throwaway2037]

This comment is weird. The Shah's son != the Shah. Reza Pahlavi left Iran when he was 17. The Shah fell the following year. All of the issues that you raise are perpetrated by his father. His son was not responsible.

    > What he says he's planning and what he will do are not necessarily the same thing.

Not much being said here. This is true for anybody anywhere anytime. You might as well write: true == true.