History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

During World War 2 Rezā Shāh was forced to abdicate in favor of his son.

This way, why during Iran's revolution the Carter's administration had arranged for the shah to leave Iran? Why didn't they replace him with another king?

It sounds for me like they replaced him, but with an Ayatollah. Wasn't it a part of a master plan?

By that I mean to prevent Iran to be governed by fundamentalist leaders. Even developing cancer by Shāh is suspected as hi-tech assassinations.

share|improve this question
    
Angelo, if you log in before editing, you won't need to wait for approving edits of your own questions. – Darek Wędrychowski Apr 27 '13 at 23:44
3  
In what sense did the United States replace the Shah with an Ayatollah. What evidence is there that they have been active agents in this transition? – Drux Apr 28 '13 at 5:37
2  
This question seems to be based on rumor and innuendo and not on research. – Mark C. Wallace Apr 28 '13 at 11:46

Why didn't United States replace Mohamad Rezā Shāh with another king during the 1979 revolution? This way, why during Iran's revolution the Carter's administration had arranged for the shah to leave Iran? Why didn't they replace him with another king?

Concise answer:

Since, they weren't able to do so. Because the revolution of Iran was as an Islamic revolution which were doing and supporting by Majority of people strongly (approximately 98/2%) and in truth, they didn't want another king ... / So, there were striving to reach Islamic government ... And factually the US were aware that they are missing Iran.

Otherwise I assume, what ... can be solely a kind of excuse(s), since they weren't able to keep the reign..., otherwise they would keep kingdom ..., because they never like Islamic government, since such government could be deemed as a kind of obstacles against their profits and goals.


More info. regarding Iranian Revolution

The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Independence and Liberty Revolution or the 1979 Revolution;[4][5][6][7][8][9] Persian: Enqelābe Esteqlāl wa Āzādi, 'Enqelābe Esteqlāl wa Āzādi') refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States[10] and its eventual replacement with an National republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, supported by various leftist and Islamic organizations[11] and Iranian student movements. Demonstrations against the Shah commenced in October 1977, developing into a campaign of civil resistance that included both secular and religious elements[12][13][14] and which intensified in January 1978.[15] Between August and December 1978 strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran for exile on January 16, 1979, as the last Persian monarch, leaving his duties to a regency council and an opposition-based prime minister. Ayatollah Khomeini was invited back to Iran by the government,[16][17] and returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.[18] The royal reign collapsed shortly after on February 11 when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting, bringing Khomeini to official power.[19][20] Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979,[21] and to approve a new theocratic-republican constitution[12][13][22][23] whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979.

To see the complete text, refer to the following source:

share|improve this answer

England has always pursue same targets in iran:

  1. oil & gas.

  2. breakdown of iran.

  3. dispute iran's with neighbors.

  4. impose backward leaders to iran. (khomeini, naseredin shah...)

  5. Discord between iran and U.S.A (Iran's hostage crisis).

  6. stop iran's development (Islamic (backward) revolution).

  7. creating divisions within Iran (Green revolution). and so on...etc.

share|improve this answer

What benefit have accrued to the U.S?

change kingdom regime of iran into fundamentalist regime stop iran's development and its nuclear plan for more than 34 years,

share|improve this answer
2  
It was not by USA but this tragedy made some benefits for the USA in long term however Carter and CIA had never predicted an Islamic Iran governed by Ayatollahs can be more dangerous than a democratic Iran governed by national democrats! They obviously made a big mistake in not stopping it but surely they didn't have enough influence and penetration in Iran on that time to change the situation. Conspiracy theory doesn't work in this case. It was a side effect not the reason! – Persian Cat Apr 28 '13 at 11:00
2  
yes - a fundamentalist regime that is openly hostile to the US and its allies and has done over the years the most it could to spite and damage the US (including killing, by obvious proxy, 243 American Marines in Beirut). Please try again... – Felix Goldberg Apr 28 '13 at 15:56
    
@FelixGoldberg I am against fundamentalist leaders of Iran but this site is not a good place for doubtful claims and rumors. If you cannot prove something it is better to keep silence about it and do not try provocative and useless noises in the comments. It is history site and you have to provide evidence for your such claim like killing 243 military members of USA in the Beirut! They has no power to do it. It seems ridiculous. – Persian Cat Apr 28 '13 at 17:26
1  
@PersianCat the links between Hezbollah, Hamas, other Muslim terrorist groups, and the Iranian government are well known and widely documented. – jwenting Apr 29 '13 at 5:51
1  
There are some relationships between Hezbollah and Iran government but not with "other terrorist groups". Who are those "other terrorist" groups? I will be happy if you show your source of documents about but before it you have to tell us what you mean of "other terrorist groups". And at finally it doesn't mean Iran government has killed 243 military members of USA. It's not like killing 290 Iranian civilians in Iran Air 655 flight at all. I am not defending of them as I am against them and a protester but I like open-minded educated people have a difference with the other people in writing. – Persian Cat Apr 29 '13 at 14:25

The two situations were completely different: in 1943 Iran was largely occupied by the Allies (British and Russian) who thus had the final say in everything. Whereas in 1979 the Shah was toppled by a genuine revolution; at that stage there was nothing the US could have done for him. Perhaps if he had abdicated himself a few years before 1979 in favour of, say, his son, things could have worked out.

One must point out that the US did intervene in 1954 to topple Mossadegh, the Prime Minister - with the Shah connivance. However, that was also a different business.

As for the idea that the Ayatollah was an American creature—frankly, that's risible. But let's try to seriously engage with the idea and ask some questions about it:

  1. What would have been the American motive? Since the Shah was an American creature of sorts himself, the US would need a serious motive to replace him with such an unstable and unknown quantity.

  2. Are there any other examples of the US installing fundamentalist rulers anywhere? I don't think so.

  3. What benefits have accrued to the US from the Ayatollah's regime? Nothing much, except a lot of grief and trouble.

  4. In the more than 30 years since then, has any evidence of US collusion in the Ayatollah's rise come to light? Not that I know of.

So, this idea has to be dismissed out of court, upon examination.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.