The Interest of Pahlavi Supporters in Trump’s Return
The interest of Pahlavi supporters in Trump’s return: Supporters of the return of the Pahlavi dynasty, both inside and outside the country, are almost unanimously in favor of Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential elections. The reason for this interest is based on the assumption that if Trump comes to power, the likelihood of what they perceive or describe as a revolution in Iran will increase.
Regardless of how events in Iran might unfold following Trump’s potential rise to power and the intensification of sanctions, according to the wishes and dreams of the Pahlavi supporters, the fundamental issue is that Pahlavi supporters essentially lack a global perspective or considerations.
For them, it doesn’t matter if Trump’s rise to power might lead to Ukraine’s defeat against Russia or if, following Ukraine’s defeat, the likelihood of China attacking Taiwan and the fall of Taiwan’s democratic government increases. These things are of no concern to the Pahlavi supporters.
Furthermore, the fate of the most important and efficient non-Western liberal democracies in the world, namely Japan’s liberal democracy and South Korea’s liberal democracy, is of little or no importance to the Trump-supporting Pahlaviists. Likewise, the state of democratic Europe in confrontation with a Russia that has defeated Ukraine is of no concern. What matters and is prioritized for these individuals is solely the return of the Pahlavi dynasty to power. The potential sacrifice of several democracies in the world for this potential return is the problem of the free world, not the problem of the Pahlavi family.
If you pay attention to the writings of Pahlavi supporters, you will clearly see that they believe Trump is not a threat to democracy in America and the world. They have no issue with the attack by Trump’s mob on the U.S. House of Representatives to prevent Biden’s presidency and have not written anything criticizing those hooligans in the United States.
Even when Trump makes sympathetic remarks about Russia’s attack on European countries, it doesn’t bother the Pahlavi supporters. They only 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, leading to a revolution and paving the way for the Pahlavi dynasty to come to power.
If we tell them that no government has ever fallen solely due to foreign sanctions, their hope does not diminish. Also, the problems that might arise for the democratic world after Trump are not a concern for the supporters of the Pahlavi family. But why does the potential demise of Asian and European democracies, and even American democracy, not matter to Pahlavi supporters?
The reason is clear: because these individuals defend the 57 years of non-democratic rule of the Pahlavi era and believe that period had no significant flaws. This means that democracy in governing the country does not have strategic and fundamental value but is rather an ornamental matter that can even lead the government astray and cause trouble, becoming a nuisance to a developmental king.
A developmental king, of course, is a positive phenomenon worldwide, but developmentalism, if it does not lead to political development, means nothing but that many people lack the right to political participation and only have the right to enjoy their personal and daily lives, leaving politics to a specific minority. Such a situation is insulting, and experience has shown that the Iranian people will eventually shrug off such an insult.
During the 57-year reign of the Pahlavi dynasty, except for the years 1941 to 1944 when Reza Shah had left and the Shah lacked absolute power, only a minority of individuals deemed acceptable and trustworthy by the Iranian king had the right to formal political activity, meaning they could run for parliamentary representation or become ministers and prime ministers.
Such a situation does not exist in any true democracies around the world, but today’s supporters of the Pahlavi family speak of that 45-year period based on this situation as if there were no significant problems or voids in the political life of Iranians during the Pahlavi era.
Those who hold such a view actually see democracy as a redundant, at most ornamental and superficial matter. In their view, it is not necessary for the country’s general policies to be derived from the people’s vote. Of course, these individuals claim that the wise king determines the country’s general policies wisely, and the benefits and goodness of his policies will befall the people. This opinion, of course, belongs to that group of Pahlavi supporters who believe in an absolute monarchy.
The other group, which at least apparently defends a constitutional monarchy, argues that the prime minister, in interaction with the king or even without interacting with him, determines the country’s general policies, and since the prime minister is the people’s representative, therefore the people play a role in determining the country’s general policies.
But this second group, which previously mainly operated in the domestic political arena and has become monarchist for less than a decade, based on their statements, considers almost all political groups inside and outside the country unqualified to be present in the power structure in their claimed constitutional monarchy system. In summary, when you genuinely do not believe in the right to political participation, it no longer matters to you what dangers might befall democratic countries if Trump comes to power.
The democratic countries of the Western world, or Japan and South Korea, have free elections and allow citizens with various thoughts and ideologies, from extreme left to extreme right, to enter the power structure if they win the people’s vote. Such a practice has no place in the monarchist plan for Iran’s future.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the Pahlavi supporters are only concerned with the return of the Pahlavi family to power, and the life and death of democratic political systems in the East and West of the world are indifferent to them. This group, in general, defends capitalism without democracy, but the reality is that true capitalism inevitably leads to democracy.
Capitalism combined with authoritarianism, especially in a country like Iran, where the desire for overthrow is woven into the fabric of its political culture, is prone to recurring political crises, each of which can topple the government or at least damage the government’s legitimacy and even efficiency. Moreover, capitalism without democracy provides a fertile ground for the growth of corruption within the power structure, and this feature also serves to strengthen that anti-power and revolutionary political culture.