In the 1920s, then-prime minister Reza Khan and his followers were planning to turn Iran into a republic. He was stopped by the opposition of the clergy and conservatives, who were ironically the ones that pushed an Islamic Republic over 50 years later. How different would Reza Shah's rule be as a president instead of a king, would he have been more or less successful in his modernization reforms? Would the country's long-term prospects for democracy improve?
WI: Reza Shah turns Iran/Persia into a republic?
- Thread starter Hayatgheibi
- Start date
Iran Betweeen Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian. It's mentioned on page 133.
Only problem with successor is that if history goes otherwise same and Reza Pahlavi does same things, Brits will oust him and pick his successor and it will be someone who can serve their benefits.
Brits didn't really handpick his successor after the 1941 invasion, there was a lot of political jostling for power. So without the military being loyal to the monarchy, I think a republican Iran might've had a better chance at staying a democracy after Reza Shah, similar to Turkey. Of course, that is assuming the country's political culture is adequately transformed under Reza Shah.
Who do you think he would've picked as his successor?
I think that the biggest problem facing this new republic would be the lack of support for said. The monarchy of Turkey could be dissolved because it lost all credibility and there seemed to be no other choice if Turkey was to survive. Not so Iran.
Both the monarchy and Parliament had lost all credibility by the 1920s, that was how Reza Shah was able to come to power with so little resistance. But there was religious conservative opposition to republicanism as it was associated with secularism. As president, Reza would either have to give concessions to the conservatives to keep them happy or quash religious dissent while secularizing quickly.
Can Reza Shah imaginably become an Ataturk figure for Iran? Or will a more radical Reza Shah just lead to a conservative backlash?
Monarchists today regard him as an Ataturk figure, although his reforms were not as successful. I am honestly not that familiar with Ataturk and why he succeeded, but Reza Shah was hindered by his lack of support among Iran's working class. So I think any attempt at more extensive reforms, such as a republic, would have to address that fact.
On further reading, calmly and vocally assuring the Clergy's status could have allowed him to go through with the plan. Maybe even establish an "advisory council" of handpicked imams to mediate between the two.
So he would sacrifice secularism for republicanism, as opposed to OTL where he pursued secularism but not a republic.
Sorry if I'm necroing the thread, but having thought about this scenario more, a less radical revolution in Turkey (or no revolution at all if the Entente respected the armistice of Mudros) could be enough to calm the Clergy about the implications of republicanism. A more wacky alternative could be the establishment of a theocratic microstate in Qom, allowing both sides to have their own states (obvious Vatican analogy, i know)
BlackDragon98
Banned
If he remains pro-Axis and the Germans aren't able to send Panzerkorps Naher Osten to Iraq/Iran through Vichy Syria, then its pretty much the same as OTL.
The British (once they take over) would likely still opt for a monarchy as it offers more stability: they only have to deal with one guy instead of a whole room of guys.
The British (once they take over) would likely still opt for a monarchy as it offers more stability: they only have to deal with one guy instead of a whole room of guys.
But at the time the primary center of Shia thought was Karbala in Iraq. Plus there was really no centralized Shia authority akin to the Pope before 1979.
There is really no reason to restore the monarchy, considering how weak and unpopular the Qajars were. If the British really wanted to deal with only one guy (which didn’t initially happen otl), they would install a dictatorship instead.
Even if the 1941 invasion still happens, I think the end result is Iranian democracy has at least a slightly better chance of success. OTL it was killed by military loyalty to the Shah, take that away and the military just might not want to overthrow Mossadegh.
BlackDragon98
Banned
By monarchy, I meant they would put the Shah's son as absolute monarch/dictator.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was 21 at the time, and without the monarchy what little claim he had would not exist. If they install a dictator it’s going to be someone else.
There were British plans in place to restore the Qajars, even with the Pahlavis in charge.
If the Qajars are restored, Iran is going be like Egypt or Iraq being a British puppet state. I imagine the Soviets won't withdraw from Northern Iran but set up either a Puppet Iranian wide government or do the Mahabad and Azerbaijan People's Government like otl.
That is another interesting scenario that deserves a whole other thread. But it didn’t happen because no Qajar was willing and able to do it. It would’ve been even less likely to occur if Reza Shah created a republic, as that deprived the Qajars of what little legitimacy they had left. If the British did pursue that path, not only would the Soviets permanently take the north, but you would probably have a coup/civil war within a few years. It is in the British’s interest to have a stable government in Iran.