It's more like revolutions tend to lose the plot all the time. Just look at the French Revolution, the various revolutions in South America in the Napoleonic era, the Russian Revolution, the 1642 English Revolution. Frankly, the American Revolution is more of an abnormality than anything.
I think the American revolution was unusually smooth because they already had an organized system - state governments and elected assemblies - who stepped in to take over after the British were kicked out. The thirteen colonies went from being a collection of republics underneath a crown to a collection of republics underneath a president.
Most revolutions do not have a clear, legitimate, organization to take authority after the old system is overthrown. The Russian revolution had the Provisional Government and Petrograd Soviet competing for authority, paving the way for the Russian Civil War. The French Revolution attempted to create a new system of government from scratch, and was in chaos due to the Monarch attempting to escape, foreign powers attempting to intervene, and constant paranoia of threats from in. After scrapping most of the feudal laws the bourgoisie hated, the revolution ended with yet another monarch ruling France, but this one promised to rule by Enlightenment values.
Indeed, but if he's fine with republic (aka government where he has 0 power, even informal/ceremonial one that constitutional monarchy would have) it might mean at least something
Pahlavi doesn’t have any real means to gain power. The Ayatollah had an effective army at his command already in Iran, the crown prince doesnt. At most he might come back as a constitutional monarch, but there’s no world in which he has any chance of regaining the level of power the Shahs once had (especially since the U.S. don’t seem to support him)
"Thanks Allah, the bad days are over "
"Now it's time for even worse day."
People in a "revolution" can be dumb af
It's more like revolutions tend to lose the plot all the time. Just look at the French Revolution, the various revolutions in South America in the Napoleonic era, the Russian Revolution, the 1642 English Revolution. Frankly, the American Revolution is more of an abnormality than anything.
I think the American revolution was unusually smooth because they already had an organized system - state governments and elected assemblies - who stepped in to take over after the British were kicked out. The thirteen colonies went from being a collection of republics underneath a crown to a collection of republics underneath a president.
Most revolutions do not have a clear, legitimate, organization to take authority after the old system is overthrown. The Russian revolution had the Provisional Government and Petrograd Soviet competing for authority, paving the way for the Russian Civil War. The French Revolution attempted to create a new system of government from scratch, and was in chaos due to the Monarch attempting to escape, foreign powers attempting to intervene, and constant paranoia of threats from in. After scrapping most of the feudal laws the bourgoisie hated, the revolution ended with yet another monarch ruling France, but this one promised to rule by Enlightenment values.
"I wouldn't say 'freed'. More like 'under new management'"
Ruhollah...sounds like Scooy-Doo trying to talk.
It's gonna happen again but with Pahlavi now
"We have to make a strong liberal Republic now that the Ayatollah is gone"
Funnily enough Pahlavi has consistently spoken in favor of constitutional monarchy, but some of his supporters want absolute monarchy
"he has consistently spoken" politicians famously never lie or go back on their word or try to grab as much power as possible
He literally said he's fine with Iran being a republic or at most constitutional monarchy, so that's unlikely
What one says and what one does are two very different matters.
Indeed, but if he's fine with republic (aka government where he has 0 power, even informal/ceremonial one that constitutional monarchy would have) it might mean at least something
he said he is and prefers a republic but will follow the peoples will
He didnt become a US backed dictator yet of course he will say that now.
Politicians famously never lie or go back on their word, so this is really good news
Pahlavi doesn’t have any real means to gain power. The Ayatollah had an effective army at his command already in Iran, the crown prince doesnt. At most he might come back as a constitutional monarch, but there’s no world in which he has any chance of regaining the level of power the Shahs once had (especially since the U.S. don’t seem to support him)
I don't think the people will let that happen again
Time to give your kids plastic keys and let them roll through mine fields so that they can clear the way for the actual soldiers.