Some interesting posts: Thank you,
@LizKat and
@sorcery, for your comments, and thank you, too,
@phrehdd for your posts.
Now, as to personal knowledge of this world: I have worked in a number - four to date - of Muslim countries - which range from the truly dystopian to those that were once secular and have been blinking as they emerged from civil wars - or revolutions - into a changed world; come to think of it - all four have had revolutions, wars, civil wars, and have experienced peaceful - and exceptionally non-peaceful - as in revolutionary - regime change.
Now, none of these were - or are - Middle eastern countries, but Iran would not view itself as 'middle eastern' either, not least because of the glories of its Persian past, or its allegiance to the Shi'ia school, or branch, of Islam.
In recent years, a number of colleagues of mine have visited Iran, and all report that the society and political culture is a lot more complex, nuanced and subtle than seems to be readily appreciated in some western sources.
Having said that, firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has taken a civil tone - and treated the topic seriously - in this thread so far. I appreciate that, and am grateful for it, especially given the intemperate tone in which much political discussion and debate is - and has been conducted on - these threads in recent months, some of which are an absolute disgrace.
My own background is that of an academic historian and specialist in political stuff who has strayed into public service in recent years.
Meanwhile, my comments about Mr Rafsanjani and his perceived moderation have to be taken in the context of Iranian society.
Far too often, when commenting on countries with weak institutions, an ambiguous attitude to questions of what constitutes the rule of law, and what should be governed by the rule of law, a lack of democratic traditions (or, in the specific case of Iran under Mr Mossadegh in 1953, a country with strangled-at-birth democratic traditions), and a long history of autocracy or authoritarianism, we in the west all too often casually condemn them for not meeting our standards.
The problem with this is two-fold: Firstly, and this point is not missed by many of those with whom we deal, negotiate with, and encounter in such countries - and who tend to view us as monstrous and outrageous hypocrites as a consequence, - we do not always adhere to those standards we claim to uphold and supposedly believe in ourselves - the absolute scandal of Guantanamo - among others - is an enduring testament to that.
And secondly, it is fairer to judge these societies by the yardstick of their own history, recent and less recent, than by whether they adhered to our standards.
Seeking to apply western standards to Iran is especially egregious as the west was thoroughly complicit in the disgraceful and shameful overthrow of one of the few leaders - Mr Mossadegh - who had ever been elected in a genuinely free and fair and democratic election in the Muslim world.
By the standards of post revolutionary Iran, Mr Rafsanjani was a moderate, and that is something to be welcomed.
With regard to the Shah, it is far too easy to lay the blame at the feet of Mr Carter; the picture is much more complicated than that, and goes back, firstly, to how the Shah came to exercise and hold power - this cannot be overlooked in the light of later events.
At the time, - that is 1978-1979 - much western hope was centred on the 'moderate' secular opposition, individuals such as Mr Bakhtiar, and later, Mr Bani-Sadr. Hardly anyone foresaw that Mr Khomeini would emerge as the most powerful and influential individual in the country.
Indeed, in a lesson we have failed to absorb - and learn from - on countless occasions - democracy as we understand it cannot take root in regimes where we have helped secular autocrats imprison, murder, or exile those who support democratic values, the rule of law and the accountability of state actors, and - because of this - that vacuum will be filled by the sole remaining outlet for dissent, which will often take the form of religious scholars who articulate opposition to a regime some have come to detest.
The challenge for the Shah - and for anyone seeking to set about implementing social, cultural, economic and political change in such societies is to find a way for Islam itself to be seen as the engine for change, and being the means of managing change; otherwise, such social changes as occur - while benefitting urban elites, and the educated urban middles class - will be seen as imposed from 'outside', and rejected as such by conservative religious scholars, especially those with influence in rural parts of the country that still define their identity in terms of adherence to what they think is "tradition".
