I'm John Batchel with Gregory Copley, Constitutional Monarchy.

That is the system of government that we left in 1776 to 1783 in the Peace of Paris, the Peace Treaty of Paris.

And the United States devoted itself to the congressional presidential, the three articles of the Constitution, not a

constitutional monarchy. We're told famously that Washington refused the crown, and that George

III admired him for that. That's the fairy tale. The constitutional monarchy right now,

in Britain, looks stable, although the country is very troubled. It has a king who works

hard to maintain a sense of Britishness. Constitutional monarchy is suggested by voices in the

protests in Tehran. It's suggested by people who are familiar with the Pahlavi's and Reza Pahlvi, who has lived in the United States most of his life, he's now 65 years old, is talking about a constitutional monarchy in which he would have no power other than that of symbolic language.

And there would be a Majlis, a parliament elected by the people.

Is it credible, Gregory?

Oh, it's very credible.

In fact, it worked very well under the Shah.

The Majlis had a huge degree of autonomy.

The Shah was highly conscious of his responsibilities to the public

and to, if you like, guiding the country

rather than dictating anything that would construe an autocratic government.

Whether Razapalibi is ready for it is the question.

The great advantage he has is that there is no viable alternative to him at this stage.

We know that the US Department of State if it gets involved will oppose anything that has monarchy in the name.

They've opposed monarchies routinely.

They were angry with Richard Nixon for his support

of the Shah in the 70s and the like. But the reality is that the only name recognition we're

...