Kings suck.
Recommended reading:
Jimmy Carter and the 40 Ayatollahs
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/170201.shtml
By Middle East standards the Shah of Iran was a progressive democrat. In the eyes of President Jimmy Carter and certain foreign policy factions in the State Department and various think tanks, the Shah represented the heart of darkness.
In an article in May 2002, NewsMax's Chris Ruddy pointed out:
"Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? "No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
"The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.
"By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever."
u said it my friend....
i am always suspicious of 'kings' looking for democracy...
when the revolution begins they assume power 'temporarily' until democracy is setup but their rule tends to last decades...causing an even greater calimity later on...
whats the iranians need is democracy..not swapping one dictatorship for another...
i know this guy might be the exception but i dont think it worth the risk...