Israel can fight an offensive war with anyone, but occupations are tough for even the most powerful nations unless they are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain it. Israel’s problems in Lebanon and the West Bank don’t mean Israel’s military can’t handle Iran, any more than the Soviets problems in Afghanistan or ours in Iraq mean either of those countries couldn’t stomp on 90% of the world’s militaries with ease.
Israel can attack Iranian nuclear facilities and can set Iran back. How far back is open to question, since they may not know where every site is and it might be hard to determine how much damage they did after the fact. Don’t underestimate the Mossad either. If anyone can find out where all of Iran’s facilities are, they can.
I wouldn’t say it was a case of one or another, but rather all of the above ( and unfortunately some of his “good deeds” were framed in an authoritarian context - i.e. outright banning the wearing of veils et al ).
In a mixed fashion and under different operative modes at times. Iran is in some ways better, some ways the same, and some ways worse than under the Shah.
I don’t think based on readings and a few personal convos that the royal family is all that overwhelmingly popular with any group beyond the ousted elites. I know there are a fair number of royalist exiles, but broad-based home support? I’m dubious. Whatever unpleasant twists the Iranian revolution may have ended up taking, it seems to have been a genuinely popular rising. Ousting the ruling mullahs is one thing - returing to a monarchy when they have a perfectly functional ( well, more or less ) democratic framework, seems unlikely.
I’m not so sure about either the secular or individualist parts myself. It’s certainly to my preference ( though I’m certainly not so individualist by American standards as to be anywhere near libertarianism ). But eliminate the ademocratic theocratic stranglehold at the very top and I’m not so sure a modern “Islamic democracy” would be a contradiction in terms. We may get a chance to see, one way or another.
The fact that several million Muslim families live and thrive in the U.S. and Canada suggests that Muslim values are not incompatable with liberal democracies.
That said, it’s time for some completely baseless speculation (woo-hoo!). The religion of Middle-Eastern Muslims stresses submission (by definition, I guess, since that’s what the word “Islam” means) while the culture of the region stresses strict paternal and authoritarian rules. The combination leads to a society that conforms rather easily to social hierarcies, caste systems, and dictatorships. Outside cultural influences can show the rank-and-file that they don’t have to shut up and live in misery just becuase some sheik or Ayatollah says so. Personally, I think instead of bombing Iraq, the Americans could have just dropped a few million satellite-dish kits with easy-to-follow instructions and then just blanketed the area with propaganda of western families enjoying full dinner tables, people taking care of their own homes in casual comfort, and a bit of soft-core porn, mixed in with video footage of Arabs being executed by other Arabs, and a respectable-looking Muslim cleric reading the gentler parts of the Koran in a well-modulated voice.