The US has a very bad habit of running aroound overthrowing foreign governments, overtly, covertly, directly, or, preferably, by proxy. It almost always has multiple motives and goals when it does so. There is usually a plan, generally half-assed and poorly thought out, but a plan all the same. It also usually has a replacement government in mind. One or more aspects of the plan usually require a puppet or sympathetic government.

Democracies are shitty replacement governments. We want clients/puppets who will serve our ends indefinitely. Elected governments can change at any time. Hence we prefer some sort of autocrat, preferably a tyrant, because they generally have a lot of staying power. Of course, this is one area where the plans get half-assed. We helped Saddam Hussein come to power, but he eventually became a PITA. Same for Noreiga. We planned to replace Saddam with Chalabi, but that turned into a non-starter and now we have chaos. We replaced Arbenez with a junta that(oops) turned into a succession of juntas (still better than a democracy, however).

However, there were successes. We replaced Allende with Pinochet, and he lasted a good long time. We replaced Mossadegh with Shah Reza Pahlavi, and he too lasted wuite a while.

That last dude, Pahlavi, he wasn't a mere rat bastard dictator, he was a King and Emperor too. Onlike ordinary dictators, royalty leave psuedo-legitimate heirs to the throne. So, no big surprise, there is an heir to the Peacock Throne, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. Naturally, he believes that it is his turn, and he believes that we should help him get his turn on the family throne.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Iran-s-long-exiled-prince-wants...

Iran's long-exiled prince wants a revolution in age of Trump
Jon Gambrell, Associated Press Updated 10:10 am, Sunday, April 9, 2017

From the article:

Pahlavi's calls for replacing clerical rule with a parliamentary monarchy, enshrining human rights and modernizing its state-run economy could prove palatable to both the West and Iran's Sunni Gulf neighbors, who remain suspicious of Iran's intentions amid its involvement in the wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

BWAHAHAHA

The only thing Pahlavi knows about parliamentary monarchies is that his daddy overthrew one with the help of Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA in order to become a dictator. If we install him on the throne, he will be just another US backed tyrant like his dad and an enormous list of others. If he wanted democracy for Iran, he wouldn't be asking to be king as part of the deal. He wouldn't be "Crown Prince" and he wouldn't let people call him that.

Those wars in Iraq (started by US), Syria (a proxy war, Saudi's and CIA first), and Yemen (a local counterrevolutionary civil war spurred by the Saudis) were none of them started by Iran. Its neighbors, excepting the Saudis, should be suspicious of the Saudi and US intentions, not Iran's. Suspicion, especially when fueled by decades of incessant propaganda, is no basis for starting a war of conquest in order to install a usurper.

More silliness

"If you look at the legacy that was left behind by both my father and my grandfather ... it contrasts with this archaic, sort of backward, religiously rooted radical system that has been extremely repressive,"

Yes, it was more secular and unimaginably repressive, with the SAVAK being assisted, abetted and enabled by the CIA (operating out of that famous US embassy). The SAVAK rank with the worst torturers and secret services in history. Not only was nobody safe, but running to the US embassy for help simply got you in more trouble. One of the few places in history where the citizenry lived in constant fear of not one but two nation's malicious secret services.

So now, the kid thinks it is his turn. Under what theory do the children of deposed usurpers get a turn to govern. The problem is that this idea is sure to get a lot of support here. We don't need any more stupid wars, so we need to push back on that idea whenever it surfaces its ugly head. We've seen this movie, and it is really bad.