Interest of Pahlavi supporters in the return of Trump
Pahlavi supporters’ interest in the return of Trump, supporters of Pahlavi’s return inside and outside the country are almost all supporters of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential elections. The reason for the interest of these individuals in Trump’s victory in the upcoming US elections is based on the assumption that if Trump comes to power, the likelihood of what they imagine or describe as a revolution in Iran will increase.
Regardless of whether after Trump’s potential rise to power and the intensification of sanctions, internal events in Iran will align with the desires of Pahlavi supporters, the fundamental issue is that supporters of the Pahlavi dynasty fundamentally lack global perspectives or considerations.
For them, it does not matter if Trump’s rise to power may lead to Ukraine’s defeat against Russia or if after Ukraine’s defeat, the possibility of China’s attack on Taiwan and the downfall of Taiwan’s democratic government increases. It is not important for the Pahlavi supporters’ group.
The fate of the most important and efficient non-Western liberal democratic systems in the world, namely liberal democracy in Japan and liberal democracy in South Korea, is a matter of significance or insignificance for the Trumpists. Also, the situation of democratic Europe in confrontation with the Russians who defeated Ukraine is what matters and is a priority for these individuals. It is solely the return of the Pahlavi dynasty to power that is important to them. The potential victims of this return may be several democracies in the world. The problem is for the free world, not the Pahlavi dynasty.
If you pay attention to the writings of the Pahlavi supporters, you clearly see that they believe Trump is not a threat to democracy in America and the world. They have no problem with the Trump supporters’ attack on the US House of Representatives to prevent Biden’s presidency, and they do not criticize the shortcomings of the United States’ democratic system.
Even when Trump makes sympathetic remarks about Russia’s attack on European countries, the Pahlavi supporters do not object. They just hope that Trump will return to power in America and impose such economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic that the Iranian people will rise up for a revolution, making the path to the Pahlavi dynasty’s return to power smoother.
If we tell them that no government has ever collapsed solely due to external sanctions, they will not lose hope. Also, the concerns about the problems that will arise for the democratic world after Trump are not the concern of the supporters of the Pahlavi dynasty. But why the possibility of the disappearance of Asian and European democracies, and even American democracy, is not important to the supporters of the Pahlavi dynasty.
The reason is clear because these individuals are defenders of the 57-year non-democratic rule of the Pahlavi era and believe that era had no significant flaws or shortcomings. This means that democracy in governing the country has no strategic and fundamental value, but is a decorative matter that can even lead the government astray, cause trouble, and be the Achilles’ heel of the progressive king.
Of course, the progressive king is a positive phenomenon everywhere in the world, but if progressiveness does not lead to political development, it is meaningless, except that many people are deprived of political participation rights and only have the right to enjoy their personal and daily lives, leaving politics to a particular minority. Such a situation is insulting, and experience has shown that the people of Iran will sooner or later shake off the burden of such insult.
During the 57-year reign of the Pahlavi dynasty, excluding the years 1320 to 1323 when Reza Shah had left and the Shah had no absolute power, a minority of favored and trusted individuals by the Iranian king had the right to engage in official political activities, meaning they could run for parliament or become ministers and prime ministers.
Such a situation does not exist in any genuine democracy in the world, but modern supporters of the Pahlavi dynasty speak of that 45-year period based on this situation as if there were no significant problems or deficiencies in the political life of Iranians during the Pahlavi era.
Those who hold such a view essentially consider democracy as a superfluous, at most ornamental, matter. In their opinion, there is no need for the country’s general policies to emerge from the people’s vote. However, these individuals claim that the wise king determines the country’s general policies judiciously, and the benefits and welfare of his policies will be the people’s share. This view belongs to that category of Pahlavi dynasty supporters who believe in absolute monarchy.
Another category that at least appears to defend constitutional monarchy argues that the Prime Minister determines the country’s general policies in interaction with the king or even without it, and since the Prime Minister represents the people, the people have a role in determining the country’s general policies.
However, this second category, which previously mainly operated in the domestic political arena and have only been monarchists for less than a decade, consider almost all political groups inside and outside the country unqualified to be part of the power structure in the constitutional monarchy system based on their views. In summary, when you truly do not believe in the right to political participation, it no longer matters to you what dangers may threaten democratic countries if Trump comes to power.
Democratic countries in the Western world, Japan, and South Korea have free elections and allow citizens with various thoughts and ideologies from far left to far right to enter the power structure if they win the people’s vote. Such practices have no place in the plans of monarchists for Iran in the future.
Therefore, it is not surprising that supporters of the Pahlavi dynasty are only focused on the return of the Pahlavi family to power and view the life and death of democratic political systems in the East and West with suspicion. In general, this group defends capitalism minus democracy, but the reality is that genuine capitalism will inevitably lead to democracy.
Capitalism, especially in a country like Iran where the tendency to overthrow its political culture is prevalent, is prone to periodic political crises, each of which can overthrow the government or at least damage its legitimacy and effectiveness. Moreover, capitalism without democracy provides a fertile ground for corruption in the power structure and this very characteristic serves to strengthen that power-averse and subversive political culture.
